[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Secure new packages (such as LibreOffice) for laptop: backports or Guix?



Hi.  My personal laptop runs no Internet services/servers.  AFAIK, the
riskiest activity in it is web browsing and, occasionally, file sharing
over BitTorrent.  I like recent software but fear the unreliability and
(most importantly) insecurity of Debian testing and unstable.

I have previously used testing.  For better security, I watched debsecan
and debian-security-announce and tried to mitigate vulnerabilities,
generally by installing the update from unstable.  It was very time
consuming and inconvenient because very often I had to reboot or at
least log out from Gnome then log back in.

Currently I use Debian stable.  For security-critical packages such as
the kernel I stay on stable, even though I would love the better Btrfs
support from the backported kernel.  But for some other packages I use
backports or Guix.

For LibreOffice, I am using version 7.2.3-2~bpo11+1 from backports.  On
December 6 I got an email from announce@documentfoundation.org about
version 7.2.4, containing a security fix.  Yet bullseye-backports is
still on 7.2.3-2~bpo11+1, and, according to the Debian changelog, that
version is from November 28.  It seems therefore to be insecure.

Is this situation a rare problem, or is it representative of poor
security in backports?  Should I downgrade LibreOffice 7.2.3-2~bpo11+1
to 7.0.4-4+deb11u1 ASAP?

And as a general rule, should I prefer backports, Guix, or do I have to
stay on stable for everything that connects to the Internet or processes
complex untrusted data (like LibreOffice documents)?

Regards

-- 
- Many people hate injustice but few check the facts; this causes more
  injustice.  Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>
- I am Brazilian.  I hope my English is correct and I welcome feedback.
- Free Software Supporter: https://www.fsf.org/free-software-supporter
- If an email of mine arrives at your spam box, please notify me.


Reply to: