Edd Barrett <e...@theunixzoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 10:00:12AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > It is such an amazing business-friendly but risk-ignorant pattern to > > simply restart software that has failed. > > It's all configurable, so if that isn't the desired behaviour, then omit > the `restart` line from the service description. Not restarting is the > default. > > My example was just for demonstration purposes :)
That's not true. You are simply demonstrating precisely why people use such software. I'm just making it clear the practice of restarting-services before determining whether the failure is exploitation related, stands 100% in opposition to security of service deployment. In the zeal for high-availability, insecure configuration is considered acceptable. Wait not just acceptable, it's cheered as being state of the art...
