On 17/12/12 00:14, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
Am Sonntag, 16. Dezember 2012, 23:19:46 schrieb Nikos Chantziaras:
On 15/12/12 12:18, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
Am Freitag, 14. Dezember 2012, 21:34:54 schrieb Kevin Chadwick:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:53:35 -0800
Mark Knecht <markkne...@gmail.com> wrote:
I guess the other question that's lurking here for me is why do you
have /usr on a separate partition? [...]
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!
I don't see why this would only affect statically linked executables.
If a bug is found in a library, all dynamically linked executables are
affected as well. When the BSD packagers put out an update for the
library, they'll also put updates for the static binaries that use it.
I don't see any security issue here.
with dynamically linked libs you can change just the lib, you can even just
use some LD_PRELOAD workaround.
As you said yourself - with statically linked libs you have to replace half of
your system.. and until the binaries are ready for distribution you can't even
work around it.
Or you wait for the update by the vendor of your OS, which is what
people do. Also, the few critical system binaries that are required to
just get a shell and fix the system, are not "half of your system."
