On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 05:05:55PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 12/4/18 4:05 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> > 
> > I personally don't agree with part of this section; security is
> > relative, and if it is stated to not be supported there are no security
> > assumptions. If anything the removal of these arches as security
> > supported demonstrates an active decisions not to support them, and
> > signals to users of these arches that they can't depend on security
> > information from Gentoo. Stable generally means a stable tree of
> > dependencies, without security assumptions, if this is e.g used in a
> > closed lab that likely doesn't impact much.
> > 
> 
> This is technically correct, but: how many users even know what a 
> security-supported arch is? I would guess zero, to a decimal point or 
> two. Where would I encounter that information in my daily life?
> 
> If I pick up any software system that's run by professionals and that 
> has a dedicated security team, my out-of-the-box assumption is that 
> there aren't any known, glaring, and totally fixable security 
> vulnerabilities being quietly handed to me.
> 
> Having a stable arch that isn't security-supported is a meta-fail... we 
> have a system that fails open by giving people something that looks like 
> it should be safe and then (when it bites them) saying "but you didn't 
> read the fine print!" It should be the other way around: they should 
> have to read the fine print before they can use those arches.
> 

+1

Wonderfully put and I couldn't agree more!

-- 
Cheers,
Aaron