Run0, a systemd based alternative to sudo, announced

> The developer talks about the weaknesses of sudo, and how it has a large possible attack surface

Poettering's hypocrisy is painful.

Is it? Does systemd's sudo replacement also have a lot of complex code running as root in a suid binary?

Because that's what he's complaining about

People blame systemd for making the liblzma problem larger than it should have been.

https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=171227941117852&w=2

"Liblzma ends up dynamically linked to sshd because of a systemd-related extension added by many Linux packagers that pulls in liblzma as an unrelated dependency."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39866076

"openssh does not directly use liblzma. However debian and several other distributions patch openssh to support systemd notification, and libsystemd does depend on lzma."

So that's your best shot against systemd?

- Linux packagers decide to patch sshd to use libsystemd for a notification, that could have been trivially done without this library.

- libsystemd depends on libzlma

- libzlma depends on xz

And therefore, systemd is insecure?

And what does this have to do with the fact that SUID is a terrible idea that needs to go?

> - libsystemd depends on libzlma

> - libzlma depends on xz

> And therefore, systemd is insecure?

Yes. You have literally just described the way it is insecure. It bundles a large amount of functionality under a single system, and therefore anything using that functionality is at risk. You seem to be suggesting that Systemd would be secure if you didn't use it, which is obviously fallacious. Anything is secure if you don't use it. Systemd offers this functionality, and did it in an insecure way. You cannot blame users for that. Saying that people shouldn't be using a certain part of Systemd is really the same as saying that part shouldn't exist to begin with. The conclusion is obviously that Systemd should be smaller to decrease the chances of things like this happening.

LZMA is a widely used compression protocol. The kernel uses it. xz - the compression tool that was affected gets used by the kernel build makefiles - they reference it in the build docs https://docs.kernel.org/staging/xz.html. It's absolutely fair from systemd to have this dependency and to use the trusted library that the most fundamental part of the underlying OS uses.

It was purely the attackers choice to leverage the exploit via systemd instead of injecting code in the kernel at build time.

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 saying they didn't do anything wrong right before the attack, or that packagers are to blame, or that other software might also be vulnerable, or anything else that doesn't address the core of the issue: Systemd created the circumstances needed for this to happen. They were warned of he risks they created, and chose to do so anyway. Now those risks have been made manifest – the inevitable result of a fundamentally flawed design.

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?