From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RIj63-0001fV-Pq for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:39:24 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DD3EF21C052; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:39:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 311C021C286 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:38:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from phjr-macbookpro.local (fi122.internetdsl.tpnet.pl [80.53.34.122]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: phajdan.jr) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0169E1B4027 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:38:38 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4EA6D7F4.1070005@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:38:28 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?IlBhd2XFgiBIYWpkYW4sIEpyLiI=?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more hardening features to default? References: <4E9FE012.5080703@gentoo.org> <4EA6C548.3070206@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.2 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigB05E2658874A5565E6CC886C" X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 28f796ca65fa00138a2df3acce4175f2 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigB05E2658874A5565E6CC886C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 10/25/11 5:11 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > And "Debian is doing it" or whatever isn't actually a bad reason to > consider this. When Debian does something by default, it means that > upstream packages will take notice. Right, I was thinking about the change for a long time, but if Debian, which advertises itself as stable and well-tested, thinks it's time to do it, then why should we stay behind? My primary motivation is doing the right thing, and linking to Debian's plans is one of my points to show that it makes sense. I think that generally just trying to patch detected vulnerabilities as soon as possible is not sufficient to stay reasonably secure. Mitigation techniques like SSP and ASLR are really important, because they give you more time to fix vulnerabilities (by making it harder to exploit them). And again, I don't suggest enabling anything by default that would degrade performance in an unacceptable way or create compatibility problems that can't be solved. And I'm also looking for a way that will provide a seamless upgrade path for existing users (i.e. one that doesn't break them). --------------enigB05E2658874A5565E6CC886C Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAk6m1/oACgkQuUQtlDBCeQJ+AwCeIJ/FcJ3iUZRvtgDnDP/nUPFo XvkAn1eTqm4F//j04ghYT8/zNWiznvi1 =OB4y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigB05E2658874A5565E6CC886C--