Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 19:01:22 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: gnome@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 217844] devel/gvfs Message-ID: <bug-217844-6497-yO2UBx26iV@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-217844-6497@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-217844-6497@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D217844 Chris Hutchinson <portmaster@bsdforge.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |portmaster@bsdforge.com --- Comment #1 from Chris Hutchinson <portmaster@bsdforge.com> --- (In reply to q5sys from comment #0) > Due to the wikileaks dump of Vault7, we know there is a 0-day against HAL= d.=20 > Since HALd is mostly unused on the linux side, its very unlikely that it > will get patched since most distros are using systemd now. >=20 > gvfs can build without HAL support. I ran gvfs-lite on linux for quite a > while back in the days that I was a linux distro dev. >=20 > Should we disable hal in gvfs for this reason? I realize that some progr= ams > 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 >=20 > I personally side with security, but this isn't my port, so it's not my > choice to decide. Wouldn't this question be better directed at HAL; or rather, sysutils/hal? IOW why target ports that use HAL, when (apparently) HAL is the problem? Just my 0.2=C2=A2 on the matter. :-) --Chris --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-217844-6497-yO2UBx26iV>