XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy   
   From: ldo@nz.invalid   
      
   On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 09:27:15 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:   
      
   > On 2025-08-24 11:39 p.m., Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:   
   >>   
   >> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 23:10:47 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 8/24/2025 10:35 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>> I'm OK with their backdoor, it's not like Linux distros don't have   
   >>>>> them.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Which Linux distros have “backdoors”?   
   >>>   
   >>> I shouldn't have to tell you, if you were aware, paying attention to   
   >>> the clues.   
   >>   
   >> It’s all Open Source -- remember, “Many Eyes Make All Bugs Shallow”.   
   >> What do you think the people have missed?   
   >   
   > There was a backdoor in the xz utils that went undetected for a while.   
      
   “For a while” being only about a month -- not long enough for it to be   
   included in any production distros, I don’t think   
   .   
      
   > Also, I recall that the NSA got involved in Linux development for a bit   
   > and provided some utilities which were perceived to be potential   
   > backdoors.   
      
   The entire code of SELinux came from them. It’s been checked over and over   
   by independent experts looking for anything resembling a backdoor. It’s   
   been part of the mainline kernel for about a quarter century now.   
      
   > Either way, it doesn't matter which operating system you use as long as   
   > the Intel Management Engine is part of their line of processors as is   
   > the Platform Security Processor for AMD. With that kind of backdoor in   
   > the machine, you're just as insecure in Linux as you would be in   
   > Windows.   
      
   Apparently not. My laptop vendor says they’ve disabled the IME. If they   
   can do it, others can.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)