Interesting take, much like Tor you can at least be reasonably sure the government wouldn't leave itself open for attacks.
Systemd 1984 spookware subversion, we're fucked
Landon Bennett
Christian Russell
Highly skilled C programmers don't exist.
Parker Miller
but it has like 3 web browsers
Eli Flores
You people honestly think that the federal government, which spends extravagantly on defense and has access to the world's best computer talent, doesn't do any hardening before deploying the shit they're gonna use? Or do you really believe that they just use everything as-is without making sure it's squeaky clean when it's used for anything of value? Obviously none of our asses are ever going to have access to anything close to the sophistication of what the alphabet soup niggers are using, they have deeper pockets than anyone.
Hunter Thomas
James Hill
You forgot the part where SYSTEMD is networked.
Jackson Howard
Oy vey! Always use systemd for the fastest boot time and muh service management! And the systemd vulnerabilities were all honest (((mistakes))) goy! Please! You got to believe me. RunIt/busybox init/Shepherd haven't ever existed, so don't go looking for them, you dumb goyim.
Easton Lee
Government uses Red Hat because, like any organization above a certain size, they want guarantees they have support. Something breaks or updates are needed? Someone is contractually obligated to fix it. Governments like dependability, even over reliability. The nuance there is important. Having a fixed cost associated with something is much better than hoping for no major upsets down the road.
Add all of Red Hat's hardening and additional resources and it's not hard to see why any free software system for the government would quickly go to Red Hat. The only other company in the game is Canonical, but they specialize in a different type of client: end users. They're selling desktop software (well, services) not business machines.
100% you should be skeptical of systemd, Red Hat, IBM or any other large technology corporation, and of course the government. None of these guys care about the ecosystem beyond how it can help them further their own goals. But there isn't a massive conspiracy to bake spying tools into systemd; it's just a mediocre init system for people too lazy to maintain proper scripts, and it can supervise some of the more complex software that government entities are using on their servers.
The fact that it's not just the NSA or intelligence branches using it should be the clue you need. Navy and Air Force aren't going to install something with known back doors. Government agencies spy on each other all the time, but they're also all paranoid.
It's stuff like this that makes us look like paranoid degenerates who don't know anything precisely because you're spouting-off half-baked theories. If you want to prove there's a problem, audit systemd's source code and test to see if any major distributions have altered it. Monitor your network traffic and see if systemd does anything suspicious. You'll probably just bolster its popularity when it comes back relatively clean. I hate systemd with a passion but "it's a government surveillance tool" is unfounded.
Robert Diaz
Leaving existing backdoors in is dangerous, if they can find them so can opposing actors.
Creating your own backdoors and fixing the rest disrupts the opponent's work and improves your spying capabilities at the same time.
Just look at the physical backdoors the NSA installed on intercepted hardware, why go through all that trouble if they had known backdoors?
All those claims, and not a single link to back them up.
JC Denton intensifies.
Jonathan Cooper
Did you actually read my full post?
I didn't say the US government would never try to compromise something like systemd. I said that they don't need a formal connection to do so, because it's much easier and safer to impersonate a volunteer instead.