Item — HN Reader

It's worth the reduction in attack surface: https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list.php?vendor_id=...

I concede it is a little different on FreeBSD where the "base system" is developed in a single source tree and released as a complete OS. Third-party interpreters/libraries like Perl are more visibly alien there than on a Linux distro where everything effectively is.

1 comments

Hmm. As long as nothing is setuid, mere presence of different language interpreters doesn't sound like it would make much difference.

I suppose a nicely set up host would be a bit more attractive as a target, and similarly a VMS box not be an attractive target, no matter how insecure it is. Still, I wouldn't want to switch back to VMS.

I you find a VMS box deployed, you can bet it's controlling something really, really important nobody wants to mess with.

Either that, or it's a machine someone forgot to decommission and that's still there, sitting in a cabinet, eagerly waiting for that terminal connection that'll never come.

Well in the case I'm remembering a lot of setuid system utilities were written in Perl and had to be re-written in C before the interpreter and libraries could be excised. I don't know to what extent Python 2 exhibits that problem for most *nix systems.

I agree completely with switching the language for various distribution utilities to more modern languages as needed. I'm rather arguing against removing vanilla language environments that have attained the status of being ubiquitous, e.g., to save space or militate against the usage of "old" languages.