Hello, On Wed, 3 Apr 2024, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote:
> > > Seems reasonable, but note that it wouldn't make any difference to > > > this attack. The liblzma library was modified to corrupt the sshd > > > binary, when sshd was linked against liblzma. The actual attack > > > occurred via a connection to a corrupt sshd. If sshd was running as > > > root, as is normal, the attacker had root access to the machine. None > > > of the attacking steps had anything to do with having root access > > > while building or installing the program. > > There does not seem a single good solution against something like this. > > My take a way is that software needs to become less complex. Do > we really still need complex build systems such as autoconf? Do we really need complex languages like C++ to write our software in? SCNR :) Complexity lies in the eye of the beholder, but to be honest in the software that we're dealing with here, the build system or autoconf does _not_ come to mind first when thinking about complexity. (And, FWIW, testing for features isn't "complex". And have you looked at other build systems? I have, and none of them are less complex, just opaque in different ways from make+autotools). Ciao, Michael.
