Slashdot Mirror


Linux Kernel 3.18 Reaches End of Life (softpedia.com)

prisoninmate quotes a report from Softpedia: Linux kernel 3.18.48 LTS is here and it's the last in the series, which was marked for a January 2017 extinction since mid-April last year. According to the appended shortlog, the new patch changes a total of 50 files, with 159 insertions and 351 deletions. It brings an updated networking stack with Bluetooth, Bridge, IPv4, IPv6, CAIF, and Netfilter improvements, a couple of x86 fixes, and a bunch of updated USB, SCSI, ATA, media, GPU, ATM, HID, MTD, SPI, and networking (Ethernet and Wireless) drivers. Of course, this being the last maintenance update in the series, you are urged to move to a newer LTS branch, such as Linux kernel 4.9 or 4.4, which are far more secure and efficient than Linux 3.18 was. But Linux 3.18 appears to be used by Google and other vendors on a bunch of Android-powered devices, and even some Chromebooks use Linux kernel 3.18 on Chrome OS, so here's what the kernel developer suggests you do if you can't upgrade. "If you are _stuck_ on 3.18 (/me eyes his new phone), well, I might have a plan for you, that first involves you yelling very loudly at your hardware vendor and refusing to buy from them again unless they cut this crap out. After you properly vent to them, drop me an email and let's see what we can come up with, you aren't in this sinking ship alone, and it's obvious your vendor isn't going to help out," said Greg Kroah-Hartman in the mailing list announcement.

101 comments

  1. Netcraft confirms it: 2.2 Lives On! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey BeauHD, you're too young to remember the early oughts, but there was this thing called "the 2.2 kernel" and everyone used it for YEARS. Slashdot still runs on it. Did you know that?

    1. Re:Netcraft confirms it: 2.2 Lives On! by WarJolt · · Score: 2

      That's not a fair comparison. Releases are done very differently now. Also version schemes of old kernels don't match version schemes since 3.0, so that might mislead younger people.

      Also the 2.4 kernel was the one that just wouldn't die. It was maintained until 2011. I guess 2.6 was just too drastic of a change for some folks.

    2. Re:Netcraft confirms it: 2.2 Lives On! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey BeauHD, you're too young to remember the early oughts, but there was this thing called "the 2.2 kernel" and everyone used it for YEARS.

      I remember back in the 2.6.x days when Linux Torvalds said there would never be a Linux kernel 3. I not sure what he was thinking, I mean, once you get to 2.99.99 then what? He obviously changed his mind since then, so for all intensive porposes it's a mute point.

    3. Re:Netcraft confirms it: 2.2 Lives On! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also remember a statement from a Sun employee that there would never be a Solaris 11. Well, not from Sun maybe..

    4. Re:Netcraft confirms it: 2.2 Lives On! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I mean, once you get to 2.99.99 then what? /p>

      Then you get 2.100. Quite simple really.

    5. Re:Netcraft confirms it: 2.2 Lives On! by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      I remember back in the 2.6.x days

      So basically you remember the present?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:Netcraft confirms it: 2.2 Lives On! by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Yes, Enterprise Linux 6 (Red Hat, CentOS, Scientific Linux, Oracle, others) is still supported, and run 2.6.32

      The rapid change in kernels with incompatibilities between versions has become a big problem, especially in business settings. Software like VMware is unlikely to work after upgrades, and not just because kernel modules have to be recompiled, but because they won't recompile.
      Then the business choice becomes "don't upgrade the kernel", and choosing distros that won't upgrade them and only backport critical patches.

    7. Re:Netcraft confirms it: 2.2 Lives On! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...so for all intensive porposes it's a mute point.

      That seriously hurt my brain to read...stahp it pls kthx.

    8. Re:Netcraft confirms it: 2.2 Lives On! by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2

      Something happened with the transition from 2.4 to 2.6. When distros started shipping with 2.6, linux stopped being the answer to using old hardware. It fell as slow and sluggish as any other OS would (except maybe DOS). My fathers Celeron 300A was a great illustration of such, as well as the Compaq laptop my nephew once owned.

      I think the bigger kicker was 2.6 wasn't drop in compatible to 2.4. A lot of things changed (like linuxthreads->NPTL) and with it, so did the libraries that shipped with it. Old applications (Kylix) were dead in the water

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    9. Re: Netcraft confirms it: 2.2 Lives On! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He must be a Miami dolphins fan. :)

      Or an old Jewish Brooklyn resident.

      Mooooorty wots the porpose of thish.

    10. Re:Netcraft confirms it: 2.2 Lives On! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The red hat kernel is filled with so many backports it is in no way a 2.36.32 kernel

  2. Linux colonel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linux kernal

    1. Re:Linux colonel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's PENGUiN-LiCKING GOOD!!!@!

    2. Re:Linux colonel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's PENGUiN-LiCKING GOOD!!!@!

      I licked your mother's penguin, then I rubbed some fish meal on my BIG BLACK COCK and she just gobbled that shit right up, she did.

    3. Re:Linux colonel by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      This is what I come to slashdot for. The intelligent and well articulated discussions about news for Nerds and Stuff that Matters.

    4. Re:Linux colonel by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1
    5. Re:Linux colonel by NIGGERpenisbestPENIS · · Score: 1

      This is what I come to slashdot for. The intelligent and well articulated discussions about news for Nerds and Stuff that Matters.

      I prefer the calm, objective, well-reasoned debate in which all valid viewpoints are welcome and represented, and there is no prevailing group-think, ad hominems, or fanboyism. That's why *I* come to Slashdot.

      --
      The best is simply the best.
    6. Re:Linux colonel by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      I can tell by your Nick that your an intelligent, smooth-spoken and reasonable individual.

  3. Could this week get any worse? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Funny

    First we lose Richard Hatch; now it's Linux kernel 3.18. Man...

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Could this week get any worse? by amiga3D · · Score: 0

      Why don't you just go Make America Great Again.

    2. Re:Could this week get any worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Richard Hatch. OMG. I hadn't heard the news. He was truly the "original Survivor." He brought game theory to the game before anyone knew how to win Survivor. RIP, naked gay man.

    3. Re:Could this week get any worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off, maga lover.

    4. Re:Could this week get any worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'm so mema even my acronym

    5. Re:Could this week get any worse? by NIGGERpenisbestPENIS · · Score: 0

      I hate n1ggers but I love njggers.

      Well, then. That's completely different.

      --
      The best is simply the best.
    6. Re:Could this week get any worse? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      You must be one of those misogynistic, fascist, racist Nazi individuals.

    7. Re:Could this week get any worse? by antdude · · Score: 1

      Mary Tyler Moore, etc. 2017 just started! :O

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    8. Re:Could this week get any worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Die in a fire you cunttrap little bitch

  4. Linux Kernel release process is broken by KeithCu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Last I checked the Linux kernel had 4672 bugs. Something is clearly wrong with the release process. Imagine if it took an airline 1-2 years to return your lost luggage?

    1. Re: Linux Kernel release process is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was there a vibrator in your luggage?

    2. Re: Linux Kernel release process is broken by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      No, a pocket pussy.

    3. Re: Linux Kernel release process is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The prez carries a pocket pussy so he can grab herself all day.

    4. Re: Linux Kernel release process is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean "former" prez bill clitorn

    5. Re: Linux Kernel release process is broken by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Nah, ole slick carries a cigar.

    6. Re: Linux Kernel release process is broken by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      When he grabs your pussy he Makes America Great Again!

    7. Re:Linux Kernel release process is broken by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Last I checked the Linux kernel had 4672 bugs. Something is clearly wrong with the release process.

      Last I checked, Microsoft wouldn't tell us how many bugs the Windows kernel has. The safest thing is to assume that the number is infinite. Something is wrong with Microsoft's release process.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Linux Kernel release process is broken by KeithCu · · Score: 1

      Who knows how many kernel bugs are active in Windows on the ship date, but I doubt there are 4,600 of them. You might have to include the usermode code to get a number that large, and if they are working the way they used to: all the bugs would be looked at before a release, and the ones that aren't release critical (feature requests, performance, cleanups, etc.) would be postponed. It wouldn't have 1000s of crashing bugs. Check out the Linux bug list yourself and see if there is a problem. It is better to compare the kernel ship process to Boeing, not Microsoft. I suspect even the interns at Microsoft care about their bug count more than the kernel developers.

    9. Re:Linux Kernel release process is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft artificially deflates the bug count by tossing valid bugs that they don't want to fix out of the list.

    10. Re:Linux Kernel release process is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why it's open source. Fix it, rely on someone else, or don't use it. Many contributions are voluntary, and to compare Linux to a corporate product is nonconstructive.

    11. Re:Linux Kernel release process is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A kernel with code that is supported on far more hardware than any 8 windows kernels combined?

  5. "Performant" by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    I like articles that use real words (ones in the dictionary). Acronyms for technical terms is one thing, and brand names as well, but this is neither.

    1. Re:"Performant" by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      It is in the dictionary
      http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
      It is to performer as informant is to informer.

    2. Re:"Performant" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re: "Performant" by subk · · Score: 2
      Hate to burst your bubble, but performant is in the dictionary.

      From The Fucking Dictionary:

      Performant

      Adjective:

      1. Capable of or characterized by an adequate or excellent level of performance or efficiency.

      "Our software is more performant than our competitor's."

      --
      Now, if you'll excuse me, I have backups to corrupt.
    4. Re:"Performant" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A "Wiktionary" is not a dictionary.

    5. Re:"Performant" by msauve · · Score: 1

      I think he was talking about a real dictionary, not an alt-facts one.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    6. Re:"Performant" by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      It is in the dictionary
      http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
      It is to performer as informant is to informer.

      The use of the word here is as an adjective.
      Your definition is of a noun.

    7. Re: "Performant" by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Hate to burst your bubble, but performant is in the dictionary.

      From The Fucking Dictionary:

      Performant

      Adjective:

      1. Capable of or characterized by an adequate or excellent level of performance or efficiency.

      "Our software is more performant than our competitor's."

      That is a very well-formatted dictionary entry.
      Now, post the actual link to the actual source.

    8. Re:"Performant" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want you to performant on my dick

    9. Re:"Performant" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unnecessary as your dick is preformatted.

  6. 3.18? That's pretty new. by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    My phone is stuck on 3.4.42. Thanks Google (and Lenovo now I guess)

    I suppose it's still supported though, until April 2017

    1. Re:3.18? That's pretty new. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My synology with the latest firmware from a few weeks ago.

      Linux DiskStation 3.10.77 #8451 SMP Wed Jan 4 00:31:48 CST 2017 x86_64 GNU/Linux synology_cedarview_1512+

    2. Re:3.18? That's pretty new. by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      The problem is that Google doesn't mainline any of their changes. It rots in their "open source" repository and they reuse those code lines for new products long after it is wise to do so because some derivative hardware isn't supported by mainline.

        Googles open source philosophy is far from collaborative. They unilaterally change things without any thought about how it might affect other people. That is incompatible with the Linux kernel development.

    3. Re:3.18? That's pretty new. by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't phone manufactures base their kernels on the ones provided by the SoC supplier, like Qualcomm, etc?

  7. Third Party Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Linux is open source. Support doesn't have to come from kernel.org. Linaro are supporting 3.18 until December 2018. There may be other vendors committing to maintaining the kernel with at least security fixes for longer.
     

  8. ATM? by glitch! · · Score: 1

    They are still supporting ATM? I am really curious because I actually wrote ATM code. Fifteen years ago. Both device drivers and stack code. Great stuff, but that is ancient history. Can anyone tell what ATM has done in the last decade? Thanks!

    --
    A dingo ate my sig...
    1. Re:ATM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's nothing. I wrote a STREAMS networking driver last year. System V forever!

    2. Re:ATM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Made a phone call recently?

      There's also lot of DSL modems, probably some LACs or voice gear as well around with a Linux kernel in them speaking fluent ATM.

  9. Distros. Red Hat supports 2.6.18 through 2020 by raymorris · · Score: 3, Informative

    Most distros will support their long-term kernels well after kernell.org moves on. For example, Red Hat Enterprise, released in 2007, with kernel 2.6.18, has some support from Red hat until November 30, 2020.

    RHEL 6,RHEL 7, and their debranded CentOS twins provide important security updates for ten years. I use CentOS 6, kernel 2.6.32, supported from 2010 to 2020. I'll probably switch to CentOS 7 (or 8) in 2018 or so.

    1. Re: Distros. Red Hat supports 2.6.18 through 2020 by corychristison · · Score: 1

      I just set up a new server running CentOS 7, kernel 3.10. Good to know it will be well supported into the future. I also pay for KernelCare, so I don't have to think about security patches.

      I still have a CentOS 6 server running 2.6.32 in a KVM virtual machine. It's thoroughly embedded with cPanel/WHM so upgrading it will be a pain in the butt.

      I use Funtoo Linux everywhere else, and have recently deployed 4.9 across the board on all of my (in production) Funtoo servers.

  10. Should say "RHEL *5*. Supported 2007-2020, 13 year by raymorris · · Score: 1

    The second sentence is missing the version number. That should say:

    For example, Red Hat Enterprise 5, released in 2007 with kernel 2.6.18, has some support from Red Hat until November 30, 2020.

    For Red Hat 6 (kernel 2..32), they'll soon stop adding support for new hardware and it'll be security fixes and important bugs only. That may work for me until 8 is released. I prefer not to replace the OS more than once every ten years or so, so I'de prefer to skip version 7.

  11. Define "long term." by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "yelling very loudly at your hardware vendor and refusing to buy from them again unless they cut this crap out"

    3.18 was released slightly over 2 years ago (7 Dec 2014). It went LTS 3 months later (2015/3/11). At the time, "it will be supported with patches for at least two more years from today." Now it's gone, less than 2 years later. And, 2 years isn't "long term" by any reasonable definition to begin with. Don't yell loudly at anyone who used it, yell loudly at Greg Kroah-Hartman and the other kernel maintainers for over-promising and under-delivering, who think 2 years is a long time and won't even keep that commitment. 3.16 (LTS) is projected to go to 2020, when it's 5 1/2 years old (kudos to Ben Hutchings, who's a bit more realistic about what "long term" means).

    (and of course, anyone the size of Google should be able to put their own resource on maintaining a kernel they chose to use for longer if need be, not that they've figured out how to keep Android devices up-to-date anyway)

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Define "long term." by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2

      This, exactly. There's no reason to expect my phone or chromebook to need a new major kernel update within 2 years of purchase. Considering the development time in advance, I'd expect a tested kernel to be several months old before the device even launches.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    2. Re:Define "long term." by thsths · · Score: 2

      Yelling is usually a sign a bad social skills, as is recommending to yell. It is just not how normal people behave.

      And I agree he is just trying to detract from the fact that he promised something and did not deliver. 2 years is nothing - not enough even for the fast moving Ubuntu distribution, and certainly not enough for embedded development. Once the device is released, you usually do not want to change kernel versions, so 5 years would be more useful.

    3. Re:Define "long term." by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      This, exactly. There's no reason to expect my phone or chromebook to need a new major kernel update within 2 years of purchase.

      Of course there is - 'it's the economy, stupid!'. Nobody who makes portable consumer electronics wants you to have the same hardware two years after you bought it - they want a new one in your hands and fresh money out of your bank account by then. Never mind what that does to the environment and to non-renewable resources, and never mind what kind of world we're leaving to our heirs.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    4. Re:Define "long term." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now it's gone, less than 2 years later.

      What do you mean "Now it's gone"? It's still there, and had even received an update just 128 minutes before you wrote that. The LTS receives maintenance updates roughly one per month, it's the final month and they released an update for this period. They upheld their promise.

      And, 2 years isn't "long term" by any reasonable definition to begin with.

      I beg to differ. The opening paragraph to the Wikipedia seems reasonable:

      Long-term support (LTS) is a type of special versions or editions of software designed to be supported for a longer than normal period. It is particularly applicable to open-source software and projects.

      It is a product lifecycle management policy for computer software, that applies the tenets of reliability engineering to the software development process and software release life cycle. Long-term support extends the period of software maintenance; it also alters the type and frequency of software updates (patches) to reduce the risk, expense, and disruption of software deployment, while promoting the dependability of the software. It does not, however, imply technical support.

      At the beginning of a long-term support period, the software developers impose a feature freeze: They make patches to correct software bugs and vulnerabilities, but do not introduce new features that may cause regression. The software maintainer either distributes patches individually, or packages them in maintenance releases, point releases, or service packs. At the conclusion of the support period, the product reaches end-of-life.

      The term long-term-support is usually reserved for special versions or editions of software that otherwise has a much shorter release life cycle. Typically, a publisher of LTS software maintains it for at least two years.

      Linux releases are normally supported for 4 months. 2 years or more in accordance with a prior promise easily falls within that definition.

      Don't yell loudly at anyone who used it, yell loudly at Greg Kroah-Hartman and the other kernel maintainers for over-promising and under-delivering, who think 2 years is a long time and won't even keep that commitment. 3.16 (LTS) is projected to go to 2020 [kernel.org], when it's 5 1/2 years old (kudos to Ben Hutchings, who's a bit more realistic about what "long term" means).

      Are you complaining that 5 1/2 years is unrealistic, but happens to be more realistic than 2 years? Or are you claiming that 5 1/2 years is realistic but 2 years is not? That rather than them both being "long term" with one longer than the other, you feel that one is "long" and the other "not long"? It seems to me that your distinction is completely arbitrary.

    5. Re:Define "long term." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's pretty clear that GP is saying 5 1/2 years is more realistic than 2, not the other way around. Yes it's arbitrary but you can argue there are good reasons why 2 years is too short. I would argue that for a given piece of hardware, the software that came with it should be maintained as long as the hardware is viable. As in, technology hasn't advanced so far that nobody in their right mind would use it any more. As a made-up example, an iPhone 4 might be a dog by today's standards, but anything newer may still be practical, so Apple should be offering iOS updates for anything newer. The iPhone 5 was released 5 years ago.

      Computers, phones and tablets are still useful for most people well past 2 years, so consumers deserve updates for the software that comes with those devices for more than 2 years. I would consider 5 years a reasonable arbitrary cutoff based on the way hardware progresses these days.

  12. Here's my uname -a by mea2214 · · Score: 1

    Linux xxx.yyy.com 2.6.35.14-106.fc14.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Nov 23 13:07:52 UTC 2011 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux I'm operating at the bottom of the ocean and everything still works. :-)

    1. Re:Here's my uname -a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uptime

    2. Re:Here's my uname -a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux xxx.yyy.au 2.4.9-e.3smp #1 SMP Fri May 3 16:48:54 EDT 2002 i686 unknown

    3. Re:Here's my uname -a by fnj · · Score: 1

      Linux xxx.yyy.com 2.6.35.14-106.fc14.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Nov 23 13:07:52 UTC 2011 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux I'm operating at the bottom of the ocean and everything still works. :-)

      Whoopdedoo. Linux 2.2 still works fine AT THE BOTTOM OF THE OCEAN. Not much of an attack surface exposure down there. There are plenty of Windows XP boxes in labs, with well-controlled access and no exposure to the internet, doing in-house work, un-patched for many years and without any anti-virus, that are still perfectly reliable.

    4. Re:Here's my uname -a by alantus · · Score: 1

      Better ask:
      ifconfig -a |wc -l

      And the answer:
      1

  13. Re:Process? by hackwrench · · Score: 2

    What's the process for determining what version of Linux Slashdot runs on?

  14. Turn off SuExec (and fix your file permissions) by raymorris · · Score: 2

    > so I don't have to think about security patches. ...
    > cPanel/WHM

    If you care *at all* about security and are running Cpanel or even worse Plesk, you probably want to make to turn off SuExec. Both php suexec and cgi suexec. Basically what suexec does is give all visitors to your site *permission* to change all of your files. In all likelihood one of your PHP scripts gives them the *mechanism* to do so.

    Suexec was designed for servers with a thousand hosting customers who have $20/year hosting accounts all on the same server. It has some marginal utility in such a case, protecting customers from each other, though the documentation opens with a warning from the suexec developers "you shouldn't even consider enabling suexec unless you thoroughly understand the security risks". It can't possibly do any good whatsoever on a dedicated server running one site (unless you're planning to attack yourself).

    Unfortunately, Cpanel made it easy to enable, after a developer there failed to read even the first few sentences of the suexec documentation.

    If it's enabled, your file permissions amd owmership are a little screwed up. Files written by the web server are owned by your login and chmod 644. (That appears to make them unwriteable by visitors, but remember suexec basically bypasses permissions). After disabling suexec, files which *should* be writable by scripts need to be chmod 666, marking those files (and *only* those files) as writeable.

    1. Re:Turn off SuExec (and fix your file permissions) by corychristison · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the advice.

      The purpose of KernelCare is that they splice security patches into the kernel while it's running. That is what I was referring to in regards to not having to worry about security patches, and to further explain, I meant I don't have to worry about rebooting (and thus causing down time) after applying kernel security patches.

      I'm well aware of the problems with suExec and suPHP (and suHosin, etc).

      I used mod_ruid2 up until they finally incorporated support for ITK. This specific server only handles about 20 clients. This allows each account to have permissions of 0600, and with suexec and friends never having been enabled this is about as tight as you can get in terms of filesystem permissions.

      Everyone else is in their own KVM virtual server, set up specifically for their requirements, based on Funtoo.

      I'm not new to this, and resisted cPanel for a long time. This specific server was only set up in 2014.

      Cheers.

    2. Re:Turn off SuExec (and fix your file permissions) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you care *at all* about security don't run Cpanel or even worse Plesk

      FTFY

  15. Re:Linux colonel - I like this better by hackwrench · · Score: 1
  16. Re:dictionaries by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    I prefer my dictionaries to be descriptive not prescriptive.

  17. It seems I was unclear by raymorris · · Score: 1

    It seems my post was unclear. It *may* also be that you are so comfortable with your current knowledge that you are somewhat resistant to unfamiliar ideas. If that's so, that's fine. I've made a LOT of money over the last 20 years cleaning up rooted servers run by people who thought they understood this issue.

    > ITK. ... This allows each account to have permissions of 0600

    Whether you do suexec using mod_suexec, php_suexec, mod_ruid2, or mpm_ik doesn't really matter, either way the *effective* permissions are 666. How is it that a script (a visitor) can write to a file chmod 600, or even read it? It's because with mpm_itk, all visitors can read and write ALL files. Let that sink in for a minute - there's no difference in permissions between visitor_log.txt (which should be writeable) and .htaccess or .htpasswd (which shouldn't be). They all have the *same* permissions. visitor_log.txt is writeable, even with 600 permissions, because ALL files are writeable, regardless of permissions.

    The alternative, what the documentation suggests that you do if you're not a security expert, is to have only the files that *need* to be writeable as 666, and all others 644, so they are not writeable. You do that by running Apache in its default configuration, by simply not adding mod_suexec or mpm_itk to make your chmod 600 files writeable.

    1. Re:It seems I was unclear by corychristison · · Score: 1

      I'm not certain you understand how MPM ITK works.

      For each request, MPM-ITK will accept the incoming request, check the headers and determine which VirtualHost it belongs to. From there it will fork off a process and setuid/setgid's the process to the VirtualHost's defined uid/gid before handling the request. It's important to note that it uses setuid and setgid, NOT seteuid and setegid. Once that process is forked off, it's permissions are permanently set to the defined UID/GID.

      It's important to note that all SSH, and FTP daemons work in a very similar way. Even the Apache Event MPM works this way in order to utilize the linux kernel's Epoll API.

      Any scripts run either through CGI or PHP's mod_php will inherit the permissions of the process that executes them. If your permissions are set correctly, the processes handling these scripts will not be able to access files outside of the ones they have permission to access. They can't setuid back to root or another user.

      Now, that's not to say there isn't any possible way to exploit it and gain root access, but that is a risk with any internet facing application/protocol. The past has shown there are privilege escalation exploits out there even for simple programs that are not run as root. MPM-ITK has been fairly extensively tested and has proven to be "good enough" security. If you cannot accept that, that's fine.

  18. Intelligent people shouldn't feed the trolls. by mmell · · Score: 1

    Don't let 'em get to you. After all, by responding to it you let it know that it got your attention. It doesn't deserve the cheap thrill.

    1. Re:Intelligent people shouldn't feed the trolls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a common misconception. Speaking as a professional Slashdot troll myself who targets Linux zealots, responding doesn't have any effect on us at all. Responding or not makes no difference. We know you've read our reply because you were narcissistic enough to go to the effort of registering a username. Either way, you've lost. Anything else is just self-delusion.

  19. Who cares about Android updates by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    Who cares about Android updating beyond 3.18 if they aren't even updating the patches within 3.18?
    Assume the OS you get when you buy your Android device is going to be the last update for it ever.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  20. This. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > "If you are _stuck_ on 3.18 (/me eyes his new phone), well, I might have a plan for you, that first involves you yelling very loudly at your hardware vendor and refusing to buy from them again unless they cut this crap out. After you properly vent to them, drop me an email and let's see what we can come up with, you aren't in this sinking ship alone, and it's obvious your vendor isn't going to help out," said Greg Kroah-Hartman in the mailing list announcement.

    This is why people love GKH and Linus (yes, even as he is the way he is...): because a) they care and b) there's no sugar coating.

    Android is bad because of a lot of restrictions, hidden parallel workings for tracking purposes, but what annoys me most is this lack of updating. Sometimes that's good (Android 4.4.2 really sucks! and 6.0 is VERY annoying) but get a constant insecure feeling I don't have on Linux -- because there's a vulnerability and bam! -- there's a fix, almost in sequence.

    It's like having an old Linux machine and never doing any update and hoping that it won't be exploited by magic.

    This is not to mean I think Android is not Linux or that BSD-derived iOS is any better.

  21. Linux lost contact with manufacturers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a terrific position from a major Linux kernel maintainer. Such hard words only show total disconnection with the manufacturers of SoC that use Linux. If he have a good contact with then, it will not have to ask users to yield at them. It's vary bad communication, but I am not surprised at all. Far to much maintainers of Open Source project now completely abuse of there powerful position on the code to satisfy there ego again anyone that might think differently from them, ignoring issues, rejecting discussions and patches, and closing reports with "won't fix" or "not a bug".

    I professionally build Linux embedded systems since nearly 2 decade and I was never as pessimist as today. Emotions have taking over proper communication all over the place. Seem to be a thing of today time...

  22. Who cares about EOL... by enriquevagu · · Score: 2

    Who cares about EOL, when the firmware of your device includes a fixed kernel image which won't be updated, ever?

    I mean, my current Android phone (using Marshmallow) employs a kernel 3.4.42, released on April 2013. The current version of the 3.4 branch is 3.4.113 (source), released on October 2016. I don't know if there are any critical (security, performance) improvements from 3.4.42 to 3.4.113, but I simply don't care becase I know the manufacturer won't publish an updated version of the firmware with a recent kernel. If a serious kernel security bug appears and it is solved in a new kernel version, it won't be solved in my device. The situation is way better when you consider Linux desktop distributions, but still...

    What I mean is that for at least 99% of the people, the kernel is an atomic part of the firmware of their device (phone) and they won't bother about updating it. With this in mind, there should be no recommendations to the final users ("yelling very loudly" because your Android phone employs a given kernel version, haha), EOL is only significant for upgradeable systems. Not even phone designers need to worry about using LTS: they know they will never update their kernel.

    1. Re:Who cares about EOL... by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 1

      So? The recipe doesn't change: yell very loud at your phone's manufacturer that they have to cut the crap and start delivering updates. Outdated kernels are a security liability.

      --
      My first program:

      Hell Segmentation fault

  23. Not stuck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...he's not "stuck" - it's a choice.

    He's CHOOSING to not get a device with the software he needs.

    Sounds like a personal, self-entitled, problem.

    1. Re:Not stuck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no reason to not update kernels on phones.

      Thinking people need to replace a perfectly working item with the new shiny are self-entitled asshats.

  24. Do you run FTP with no password? by raymorris · · Score: 1

    It's your server, you can of course do what you want. I'm just giving you information about how 90% of malware infections occur on web sites. For twenty years I've been remediating compromised servers, and this is how it normally happens.

    > From there it will fork off a process and setuid/setgid's the process to the VirtualHost's defined uid/gid .. which has full permission to change any and all the files on the site.

    > It's important to note that all SSH, and FTP daemons work in a very similar way.

    Do you run your FTP server open with no password required?
    Probably not, that would be stupid. FTP can be used to change all your files, so you require a login.

    Do you run your SSH server open with no password required?
    Probably not, that would be stupid. SSH can be used to change all of your files, so you require a log in.

    Do you run your web server wide open with no password required?
    Yes! No login required, yet you set it up to have permission to change all of your files. That would be stu...

    1. Re: Do you run FTP with no password? by corychristison · · Score: 1

      Adding a password doesn't inheritly make it any more secure.

      We're talking about protocols and internet facing applications.

      The daemons accept connections as a root user, then forks off another process and setuid/setgid the process before handling the request. In the specific cases of FTP and SSH, the authentication still done by the root user. If there is an exploit at this level, authentication does absolutely nothing.

      With MPM-ITK, all it does at the root user level is accept the connection, then hands the rest off to the process that that is setuid/setgid to the user that needs access to the files to serve the requests. It does not handle the requests itself.

      You've yet to mention a solution better than ITK for multi-tenant web servers.

      All you've done is complain about how the default setup is insecure. You've made your point on that. The rest of what you're saying is simply not true to MPM-ITK.

    2. Re:Do you run FTP with no password? by corychristison · · Score: 1

      I think you seem to believe that having all user accounts readable by the apache process is a better security model.

      Personally, I don't want all of the users able to snoop on each others files.

      I would rather have a site be able to nuke its own files, but stay isolated to that uid/gid, than be able to read files in other accounts.

      Proper offsite backups make this a non issue for my situation.

    3. Re:Do you run FTP with no password? by raymorris · · Score: 1

      > I would rather have a site be able to nuke its own files, but stay isolated to that uid/gid, than be able to read files in other accounts.

      Sounds like you understand the trade-off. For me, I know that 99.99% of files in document_root are there for the express purpose of being made available to the public - that's why they are on the web site. Therefore I'm not TOO worried that people who have FTP/ssh access on the server can read those files. I'm *much* more concerned that visitors can add malware to the pages. I've seen far, far more problems caused by files being writeable than being readable.

      > Proper offsite backups make this a non issue for my situation.

      That's great that you have proper offsite backup which you test on a regular basis, and retain several copies of backups from different times, so you can restore to a copy that was made *before* the malware was added, the site deleted, etc. Since you have that, you may be able to fairly easily have the backup process report which files changed, filtering out the files that are supposed to change regularly. That way you won't be serving up malware for more than a day without knowing about it.

    4. Re: Do you run FTP with no password? by corychristison · · Score: 1

      > That's great that you have proper offsite backup which you test on a regular basis, and retain several copies of backups from different times, so you can restore to a copy that was made *before* the malware was added, the site deleted, etc.

      Indeed. I do. Like I said, I'm not new to this.

      > Since you have that, you may be able to fairly easily have the backup process report which files changed, filtering out the files that are supposed to change regularly. That way you won't be serving up malware for more than a day without knowing about it.

      Even one better, the system scans hourly for common malware directly on the files. It also continually monitors tmp directories and sends me notices as soon as something seems out of place. I've had a few false positives when clients update their CMS.

      I've been running web-facing servers almost as long as you have (since 2002), and only ever had to restore a site from backup once. Granted up until 2008 they were only my own sites/projects, while I outsourced clients hosting to other service providers. One of the reasons I decided to start hosting clients projects directly is because every other host I tried were incompetent, would have various issues while they tried to cram 900 websites onto a server with 1GB of RAM, or would get bought up by someone else and support would get even worse. These aren't the 'cheap' hosts, either, s

    5. Re: Do you run FTP with no password? by corychristison · · Score: 1

      *continued, accidentally tapped the submit button*

      These aren't the 'cheap' hosts either. Some accounts were costing upwards of $25USD per month for less than 1GB of storage. I'm not sure if any of them are still around.

  25. Re:Process? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nmap or some other scanner could probably determine it.

  26. No Definition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? You aren't going to define ATM to permit us to understand WTH you are talking about?

    Automated Teller Machine?
    Asynchronous Transfer Mode?
    At The Moment??

    1. Re:No Definition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GTFO

      If you can't understand context you don't belong here.