From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Wed Feb 22 18:05:44 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0AA4CE9012; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:05:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from zxy.spb.ru (zxy.spb.ru [195.70.199.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F80E1AAD; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:05:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.86 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1cgbIL-000J7I-FC; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 21:05:41 +0300 Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 21:05:41 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov To: Conrad Meyer Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Bart=C5=82omiej?= Rutkowski , src-committers , svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r314036 - head/usr.sbin/bsdinstall/scripts Message-ID: <20170222180541.GG15630@zxy.spb.ru> References: <201702210937.v1L9bY6V093836@repo.freebsd.org> <28a4cf5e-2edd-3e30-9ecd-817f886e9ea3@FreeBSD.org> <20170221144002.GA87822@FreeBSD.org> <20170222112335.GA29481@ymer.vnode.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:05:44 -0000 On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 08:11:14AM -0800, Conrad Meyer wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 3:23 AM, Joel Dahl wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 07:56:52AM +0000, Bartłomiej Rutkowski wrote: > >> I strongly believe we should, by default, ship as secured and hardened as > >> possible in order to improve overall security of new users installations. > >> Power users will and do change the OS as they please, they most likely > >> don't use bsdinstall in first place, so they're not affected in any way. > > > > Sorry, I strongly disagree with that. I'm most likely a "power user" and I use > > bsdinstall. > > Ditto. I'm also unfamiliar enough with the installer to trip on this > kind of thing. Slawa's proposed "disable all" option would be fine. My english not enought fluent for more explicate proposal, from my point most of this options do hardened in only limited cases, for other cases same options do system more un-hardened by force working as root. Some have unevident effects (/tmp cleaning, for example). For many users this options will be source of weird issuses (gdb don't work? fucking ugly freebsd! migrate to linux). This is evil trend of enforcing weird solutions under the auspices of 'my safety': airport security check, backgound check on every point, lawfull intercept, block access to hardware management in safety enviroment by 'leak ecnription'. I am enoght smart for self-sufficient security risk assessment! Industry already have at some "hardened" BSD: OpenBSD and HardenedBSD. Waht about market share?