Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 01:45:31 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> To: Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.net> Cc: "arch@FreeBSD.org" <arch@FreeBSD.org>, John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> Subject: Re: removing bdes.. Message-ID: <20150210224531.GP3698@zxy.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <964BFD22-E04A-40A4-9F82-BEB1AD97EB5A@keltia.net> References: <20150210151812.GB67127@zxy.spb.ru> <20150210172039.GA1071@reks> <20150210175240.GD67127@zxy.spb.ru> <20150210175852.GV1953@funkthat.com> <20150210180906.GI3698@zxy.spb.ru> <20150210181916.GY1953@funkthat.com> <20150210183638.GK3698@zxy.spb.ru> <20150210190132.GB1953@funkthat.com> <20150210191329.GL3698@zxy.spb.ru> <964BFD22-E04A-40A4-9F82-BEB1AD97EB5A@keltia.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 11:05:57PM +0100, Ollivier Robert wrote: > > > Hmm, as I reminder FreeBSD motto is "tools, not policies". > > If tools work as expected -- all OK. > > It is also some lines of code no one want to maintain, providing a > false sense of security, what's the point? No. 'security' is (at the least) protection and availability. Unavailability for decryption is insecurity. Even for weak encryption. > > Deny insecure crypto algorithm? Why don't force to use stong crypto > > algorithm in all places (force disk, swap and memory encryption)? > > Deny unencrypted network connection? > > Deny unencrypted arhive? > > That's besides the point, we are not here to keep old code for the > sake of it, esp. Since it will be a port. We obsolete old code all > the time you know. I'd say that uucp was more useful than bdes and > we still removed it. Removing uucp entail inconvenience for me, yes. Thanks for keeping cu (this is part of original uucp), Linux distro force to install minicom. > Why making so big a fuss? I am fuss for policy. Not for bdes as is.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150210224531.GP3698>