Am Samstag, 15. Dezember 2012, 17:43:05 schrieb Kevin Chadwick: > On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 11:18:25 +0100 > > Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerar...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > It should be moving in the other direction for stability reasons and > > > busybox is no full answer. > > > > > > On OpenBSD which has the benefit of userland being part of it. All > > > the critical single user binaries are in root and built statically > > > as much as possible, maximising system reliability no matter the > > > custom requirements or packages. > > > > until a flaw is found in one of the libs used and all those > > statically linked binaries are in danger. Well done! > > How unlikely and is why you have test systems.
wow, so how many vulnerabilities have you found with your test systems? Just a question. And how do they help mitigate the problem? Really? Having lots of test systems help you in which way if there is a root exploit in some lib that was wisely statically linked into half of your installed apps? Please explain. Without bullshit this time. Thank you very much. At least the 'no security hole in the default install' bullshit is gone. Easy to have a 'secure' default installation if it only contains ed, tar, cp, cat and a shell. -- #163933
