From owner-freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org Thu Mar 16 15:08:06 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-gnome@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 26C56D0FE9D for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:08:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 112B81092 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:08:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 1087DD0FE9C; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:08:06 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: gnome@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 103BFD0FE9B for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:08:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (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 00901108F for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:08:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id v2GF859c087674 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:08:05 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: gnome@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 217844] devel/gvfs Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:08:05 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: new X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People X-Bugzilla-Who: jt@ixsystems.com X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: gnome@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version rep_platform op_sys bug_status bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter flagtypes.name Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: GNOME for FreeBSD -- porting and maintaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:08:06 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D217844 Bug ID: 217844 Summary: devel/gvfs Product: Ports & Packages Version: Latest Hardware: Any OS: Any Status: New Severity: Affects Many People Priority: --- Component: Individual Port(s) Assignee: gnome@FreeBSD.org Reporter: jt@ixsystems.com Assignee: gnome@FreeBSD.org Flags: maintainer-feedback?(gnome@FreeBSD.org) Due to the wikileaks dump of Vault7, we know there is a 0-day against HALd.= =20 Since HALd is mostly unused on the linux side, its very unlikely that it wi= ll get patched since most distros are using systemd now. gvfs can build without HAL support. I ran gvfs-lite on linux for quite a w= hile back in the days that I was a linux distro dev. Should we disable hal in gvfs for this reason? I realize that some programs that rely on gvfs with hal will loose some functionality, so it comes down = to the issue of what's more important. Security or Features.=20=20 I personally side with security, but this isn't my port, so it's not my cho= ice to decide. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=