Think whatever you shall about systemd of course, but please stop with the blind belief mud slinging:

  - systemd didn't create the patch to include libsystemd, distros did
  - current systemd versions already remove liblzma from their dependencies, the affected distros are behind on systemd updates though
  - you can implement notify in standalone code in about the same effort as it takes to use the dependency, there wasn't really a good reason for distro's to be adding this dependency to such a critical binary. systemd documents the protocol independently to make this easy. distros having sketchy patches to sshd has a long history, remember the debian weak key fiasco?

> - current systemd versions already remove liblzma from their dependencies, the affected distros are behind on systemd updates though

The affected distros aren't behind on systemd updates, the change to systemd you describe has been merged but not yet released.

Ah, thank you for the correction!

Maybe you should reconsider your "blind belief mud slinging" eh?

Be better.

This message and others like it feel like a concerted effort at damage control around systemd.

Essentially, the optics here are that an intelligence agency created systemd to be used as a secret garden, and then manufactured community support for it using social engineering (”you’re too stupid/old/bitter to understand the complex marvel we’ve created”) and now we’re all living in la-la land when it comes to computer security.

This is full conspiracy mode thinking.

Yes, well, there actually was a conspiracy here, wasn't there? The only question is how extensive it was in time and space.

I wonder if the fact they "had" to use a dependency and jump through a number of hoops suggest they're not involved in the conspiracy? As if they had this sort of access and effort surely systemd itself would be an easier target?

But that's not saying this is the only conspiracy, maybe there's hundreds of other similar things in published code right now, and one was noticed soon after introduction merely due to luck.

libselinux also links to liblzma (and gets into sshd via PAM)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39867126

No. You are still bitter about systemd and are trying to assert blame which does not reasonably exist.

I'm not bitter, I'm wary of systemd in a security context. Their vulns seem to be a result of poor choices made deliberately rather than mistakes or sloppy coding (e.g. defaulting to running units as root when the UID/username couldn't be parsed). Lennart was staunchly anti-CVE, which to me seems again like making a deliberate choice that will only hinder a secure implementation.

I haven't followed systemd too closely, has their stance on CVEs at least evolved?

https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=17/07/30/0251232