Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Run0, a systemd based alternative to sudo, announced

mastodon.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

821–830 of 902 posts

Re: Run0, a systemd based alternative to sudo, announced

#821

Post by TheDong »

mvelbaum wrote: post #616

Maybe this isn't a good idea? https://twitter.com/hackerfantastic/status/17854955875146385...

That "hack" uses reptyr to attach to the existing pty, which requires ptrace permissions.

The same "hack" can be done against sudo if you ptrace attach to the shell that started sudo.

This isn't a new issue. It's well known that if 'user1' has ptrace permissions, they can ptrace other processes for 'user1', and thus 'user1' can compromise 'user1'. If 'use1r' is also running sudo or run0 or anything else sensitive, it follows that the thing in the tweet is possible.

This would be an issue if 'user2' could take over 'user1's pty or such.

Re: Run0, a systemd based alternative to sudo, announced

#822

Post by udev4096 »

Aerbil313 wrote: post #809
j0057 wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting! IANAL, but I think this should be basic functionality, ever since the recent-ish European and Californian privacy regulations. Although I think a quick e-mail to hn@ycombinator.com would suffice.

Would it really? Asking cause genuinely curious, literally the only online forum I can't remove my past public information from is HN.

Even if you delete your account, it wouldn't really matter that much. Whole HN is probably crawled and archived on a daily basis due to a simplistic API

Re: Run0, a systemd based alternative to sudo, announced

#823

Post by runiq »

jimrandomh wrote: post #620

> Or in other words: the target command is invoked in an isolated exec context, freshly forked off PID 1, without inheriting any context from the client (well, admittedly, we do propagate $TERM, but that's an explicit exception, i.e. allowlist rather than denylist). I think in practice, this is going to be an endless source of problems, so much so that it won't be adopted. The usual use case of sudo is that you have…

The way I see it, this is actually a good thing. Superuser access should impose a tiny bit of friction in this regard, to enforce discipline where discipline is warranted.

Run0 builds character. :^)

Re: Run0, a systemd based alternative to sudo, announced

#824

Post by deng »

cryptonector wrote: post #731
deng wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> systemd is a large beast -- no need to make it larger with unrelated things I think I sufficiently explained why it is very much related. > the Unix philosophy seems to be applicable here Systemd very much follows the unix philosophy. It is not one big binary, but actually consists of dozens and dozens of tools communicating with each other through protocols. > the result should be portable to non-systemd systems P…

> I think I sufficiently explained why it is very much related. This: | Systemd already handles logins ? But I don't see why a bring-up/shutdown system should handle logins. > Systemd very much follows the unix philosophy. It is not one big binary, but actually consists of dozens and dozens of tools communicating with each other through protocols. That is fine. As long as this service (sudo replacement) is a standalo…

> Or Linux / glibc / musl, sure, why not. Some people (no, not me) want to run Linux w/o systemd. The point is that a sudo replacement service should be fairly portable to the universe of UNIX/Unix/BSD/Linux.

This fetish of "everything should just stick with libc and POSIX" needs to go. These standards have not evolved at all, they are decades behind and don't even remotely cover the necessary requirements for implementing a "sudo replacement service". Just stick with sudo then.

Re: Run0, a systemd based alternative to sudo, announced

#825

Post by anticensor »

Zuiii wrote: post #530
CamouflagedKiwi wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or it consumes every other part of the GNU runtime and it becomes systemd/linux

At it's growth rate, it'll be just systemd. I'm only half joking unfortunately.

or, Système D OS

Re: Run0, a systemd based alternative to sudo, announced

#826

Post by 1oooqooq »

Analemma_ wrote: post #791
1oooqooq wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you have the wrong view point. he just have a different opinion than you. he single handled managed to fool RH and all distros into turning Linux administration just like windows. systemctl list of services is so inspired by the atrocious windows' admin list of services (which have 3 fields supposed to describe the service, but they all just tell you the name again). it's no wonder his reward was a job at Microsoft.…

I continue to be baffled at this widespread belief that Poettering somehow hoodwinked every single major Linux distro into accepting a shit product with, idk, hypnosis or something. Is it not possible that systemd is simply better than the alternatives, and the distro owners are smart enough to notice that, instead of just wrapping themselves cultish mantras about The Unix Way and how anything which resembles a desig…

never said that.

just that his vision was garbage, and everyone knows. but he stood by it. and nobody was putting the same energy he was to either offer better or stop it (rejecting bad ideas also take energy. see gnome deep dive into garbage as another example)

Linux is mostly made from scraps (eg Bluetooth and wifi entire stacks) or misguided but funded things. the age of scratching own itch is mostly gone

Re: Run0, a systemd based alternative to sudo, announced

#827

Post by 1oooqooq »

superpatosainz wrote: post #780
1oooqooq wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you have the wrong view point. he just have a different opinion than you. he single handled managed to fool RH and all distros into turning Linux administration just like windows. systemctl list of services is so inspired by the atrocious windows' admin list of services (which have 3 fields supposed to describe the service, but they all just tell you the name again). it's no wonder his reward was a job at Microsoft.…

It's inspired by Apple's launchd.

only in it's a rewrite of the concepts from inetd but using dbus and abused for local services.

which is a big part, but not the one most people complains about.

the actual UX is very much windows like.

Re: Run0, a systemd based alternative to sudo, announced

#828

Post by growse »

James_K wrote: post #782
growse wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The size of libsystemd is immaterial in the case of xz. The attackers had control of xz, and wanted to load it from sshd. There's lots of projects that link xz, big and small. Patching sshd to include any of them would have implemented the backdoor.

> But other software is also hypothetically insecure. And I'm sure it'll be the same excuse next time.

> But other software is also hypothetically insecure.

This is not my point.

Re: Run0, a systemd based alternative to sudo, announced

#829

Post by James_K »

growse wrote: post #828
James_K wrote: post #782

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But other software is also hypothetically insecure. And I'm sure it'll be the same excuse next time.

> But other software is also hypothetically insecure. This is not my point.

Yes it is [1].

[1] There's lots of projects that link xz

Re: Run0, a systemd based alternative to sudo, announced

#830

Post by kasabali »

growse wrote: post #144
James_K wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your speculation on what is right and what was fair is of no consequence to me. Their error was not simply using a compression library, it was creating a large central point of failure. If Systemd was smaller, it would not have caused this error. By being large, it made itself vulnerable. It made itself a target. It made other software insecure. These facts are inescapable. And you cannot justify this by simply sayin…

Why is this an argument specifically against systemd, rather than all large software projects? Linux kernel, gcc, glibc - all bundle "a large amount of functionality under a single system" - does this make their design fundamentally flawed as well?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Post reply on HN