Re: [dev] suckless vs. security? - Was: [slock] kill slock with Ctrl+Alt+Multiply

From: Nick <>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:59:21 +0000

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:40:03AM +0100, ilf wrote:
> This got me tinking: Is there a place in the suckless philosophy for
> security? (However one wants to define that). Small code base can't
> mean "insecurity".
> I for one, love suckless software, but I want "security" as a basic
> feature, too.

Small and well designed code also means auditable code,
which is a big boon for security.

Think for example about my simplyread browser addon[1]. Of
course browsers are wonderfully insecure, but addon programs
which are actually sensibly designed and readable can be
quickly checked to see they don't add to the problem.
> I also really like sic and ii, but without extra code for SSL, I
> won't use it.

They may well be examples of things that stunnel can work
fine with. Wrapper programs can be very handy alternatives
to building in alternative network functionality (e.g.
torify), though they tend to play less well with static

More generally, though, I agree, SSL is a good example of a
security technology which is well worth the additional


Received on Mon Jan 23 2012 - 10:59:21 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Jan 23 2012 - 11:00:12 CET