This cannot conscientiously be called a security tool, as it lacks:
- author attribution (in fact, a mockery is made of it)
- qualified independent security review and endorsement
- designs justifying irrational decisions such as unilateral superuser execution
- any sort of testing, validation or significant documentation of code functionality
- steps to undo whatever this does (since anything is possible, as all liability is explicitely disavowed)
This is not meant to discourage development, but such software should have a clear an EXPERIMENTAL disclaimer and not purport to secure anything; primum non nocere.
I do not disagree and wanted to keep it true to the linux community and thought - "these guys can make it better and improve at the cost of time versus $$" add to it and improve it
- author attribution (in fact, a mockery is made of it)
- qualified independent security review and endorsement
- designs justifying irrational decisions such as unilateral superuser execution
- any sort of testing, validation or significant documentation of code functionality
- steps to undo whatever this does (since anything is possible, as all liability is explicitely disavowed)
This is not meant to discourage development, but such software should have a clear an EXPERIMENTAL disclaimer and not purport to secure anything; primum non nocere.