InferenciumPosted: 2022-01-29 (UTC+00:00)
Updated: 2022-11-14 (UTC+00:00)
Anyone who cares about security may want to switch from systemd as soon as possible; its lead developer doesn't care about your security at all.
Poettering:
"You don't assign CVEs to every single random bugfix we do, do you?"
My thoughts:
Yes, if they're security-related.
Source:
systemd GitHub Issue 5998
Poettering:
"Humpf, I am not convinced this is the right way to announce this. We never did that, and half the
CVEs aren't useful anyway, hence I am not sure we should start with that now, because it is either
inherently incomplete or blesses the nonsensical part of the CVE circus which we really shouldn't
bless..."
My thoughts:
CVEs are supposed to be for security, and a log of when they were found and their severity, so yes,
it *is* the correct way to announce it. It seems as if over 95 security-concious people think the
same.
Source:
systemd GitHub Issue 6225
Poettering:
"I am not sure I buy enough into the security circus to do that though for any minor issue..."
Source:
systemd GitHub Issue 5144
Poettering:
"Yes, as you found out "0day" is not a valid username. I wonder which tool permitted you to create
it in the first place. Note that not permitting numeric first characters is done on purpose: to
avoid ambiguities between numeric UID and textual user names.
systemd will validate all configuration data you drop at it, making it hard to generate invalid
configuration. Hence, yes, it's a feature that we don't permit invalid user names, and I'd consider
it a limitation of xinetd that it doesn't refuse an invalid username.
So, yeah, I don't think there's anything to fix in systemd here. I understand this is annoying, but
still: the username is clearly not valid."
My thoughts:
systemd was the thing that allowed root access just because a username started with a number, then
Poettering blamed the user.
Source:
systemd GitHub Issue 6237