I thought I’ll make this thread for all of you out there who have questions but are afraid to ask them. This is your chance!

I’ll try my best to answer any questions here, but I hope others in the community will contribute too!

  • Cyclohexane@lemmy.mlOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is not a good argument imo. It was a miracle that xz vulnerability was found so fast, and should not be assumed as standard. The developer had been contributing to the codebase for 2 years, and their code already landed in debian stable iirc. There’s still no certainty that that code had no vulnerabilities. Some vulnerabilities in the past were caught decades after their introduction.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Its not a miracle it is just probability. When you have enough eyes on something you are bound to catch bugs and problems.

      Debian holds back because its primary goal is to be stable, reliable and consistent. It has been around longer that pretty much everything else and it can run for decades without issue. I read a article about a university that still had the original Debian install from the 90’s. It was on newer hardware but they just copied over the files.

      • Cyclohexane@lemmy.mlOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Lots of eyes is not enough. As I mentioned earlier, there are many popular programs found on most machines, and some actually user facing (unlike xz) where vulnerabilities were caught months, years, and sometimes decades later. xz is an exception, not a rule.

    • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I was running 12 stable on a machine that had been updated and upgraded in between the time when the backdoor was introduced and when it was discovered. At no point in time did either dpkg query or the self report show that system had the affected 5.6.0(?) version.

      Stable had versions of xz that contained commits from the attacker and has been walked back to before those were made out of an abundance of caution.

      There’s a lot of eyes on that software now and I haven’t seen anyone report that versions between the attacker gaining commit rights and the attacked version were compromised yet, as you said though: that doesn’t mean it isn’t and vulnerabilities have existed for many years without being discovered.

      As to whether it’s a good argument, vulnerabilities have a short lifespan generally. Just hanging back and waiting a little while for something to crop up is usually enough to avoid them. If you don’t believe me, check the nist database.

      I’m gonna sound like a goober here, but the easiest way to not trip is to slow down and look where you’re going.