Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:20:05 -0700 From: Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org>, Mark R V Murray <mark@grondar.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r274739 - head/sys/mips/conf Message-ID: <1416608405.1147.307.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmonofBOXkDbSgyy0su=ARFmgUyX_qyG=71yJQkJ=ruc%2BZA@mail.gmail.com> References: <201411200552.sAK5qnXP063073@svn.freebsd.org> <20141120084832.GE24601@funkthat.com> <AE8F2D30-7F91-4C90-B79A-D99857D8AED8@grondar.org> <20141121092245.GI99957@funkthat.com> <1416582989.1147.250.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <026FEB8A-CA8C-472F-A8E4-DA3D0AC44B34@grondar.org> <1416596266.1147.290.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <F017033A-B761-4435-A7F8-264D2F4662A0@grondar.org> <1416598889.1147.297.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <7387FDB9-206F-418F-8B0B-D1FB9723A4D7@grondar.org> <CAJ-VmonofBOXkDbSgyy0su=ARFmgUyX_qyG=71yJQkJ=ruc%2BZA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2014-11-21 at 13:57 -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 21 November 2014 11:53, Mark R V Murray <mark@grondar.org> wrote: > > > >> On 21 Nov 2014, at 19:41, Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > >> The arrogance in the way you talk down to me about my right and abil= ity > >> to decide these things is mind-boggling. It's clear you're going to= do > >> whatever you want, so I guess I'll just shut up. > > > > I=A2m sorry for offence; that was unintended. > > > > Was *was* intended was to attempt to engage you in dialogue. You are > > obviously annoyed, but after rather a lot of discussion (2 devsummits= , > > 1 EuroBSDCon and a lot of email), some form of consensus was required. > > Unfortunately you are not one of those who could not be accommodated = to > > the extent that you desired. We obviously couldn=A2t make everyone ha= ppy. > > Some aspects of the compromise were things *I* really didn=A2t like. > > > > I think there are ways round your problem, and I=A2ll be happy to hel= p you > > get there. Please don=A2t just hold out for one particular solution; = be > > flexible. >=20 > Unfortunately there are things that the real world expects on these > silly embedded platforms that we can't avoid: >=20 > * sshd as a requirement for remote access; > * HTTPS as a requirement for remote access; > * crypto available for WPA/WPA2 key negotiation for wifi access; >=20 > and so on. >=20 > So, we can't just "not" have random ready early at boot and only use > non-crypto services, because the real world knocked on our door and > said "We don't care about full security at boot; we'll gather entropy > and improve things soon." >=20 > So yes, I +1 needing some build option that lets us feed some crappy > random numbers out at startup. I dislike it, but the realities of > these ubiquitous embedded platforms is unfortunate :( >=20 Just for the record, what you're describing and asking for is really unrelated to what I've been saying. It sounds to me like you're saying you want a general purpose device which WILL be exposed to all the hazards of the great wide world to be allowed to operate unsecurely in the face of those hazards. Maybe there's validity in that, maybe not. My situation is different... I'm talking about devices in which there is no exposure to such hazards, most often because the device is a small part of some larger system and the protections are provided by the wider environment (if that's even an issue, for example if a network connection is even part of the system). But in the wider sense, I've also been talking about policy, and who should be in control of it. Traditionally it has been in the hands of system administrators. Newthink is apparently that they're too dumb to get it right and policy should be dictated by software authors. -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1416608405.1147.307.camel>