OSEC

Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
 
Subject: Re: Demo patch - run telnetd as non-root and chroot()'ed
From: Damien Miller (djmmindrot.org)
Date: Sun Jul 23 2000 - 22:23:49 CDT

On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Len Budney wrote:

> The problem is that the GPL has security implications.

IMO this is drawing a pretty long bow.

> First, somebody will soon decide that tcp-server should watch two ports at
> once ``to eliminate redundancy'' or some such. They will either 1) bully
> their change into gcp-server, or 2) fork and release gcp-inetd. There
> will be one secure version, and several confusingly similar, insecure
> near-misses. (In lieu of my example, [insert change here].)

By this logic, any free license has security implications. Better tell
this to the OpenBSD team :)

> Second, GPL => autoconf => compile-time feature selection. We would need to
> ensure that EVERY combination of compile-time options produced a system as
> secure as the standard version. Doable; the danger is we won't do that.

This I do agree with - autoconf makes for difficult to audit code.

> Third, every security hole in every gcp-server configuration will be
> laid at the developer's doorstep. Potentially, the support of such a
> system will collapse of its own weight. More likely, security will
> disappear in a few generations through feeping creaturism.
 
You are applying Bernstein's reasoning for his license choice to other
software projects. IMO you are casting unwarranted aspersions. What
GPL projects have "collapsed under their own weight" or had their
security "disappear"?

-d 

-- 
| "Bombay is 250ms from New York in the new world order" - Alan Cox
| Damien Miller - http://www.mindrot.org/
| Email: djmmindrot.org (home) -or- djmibs.com.au (work)