Nobody is claiming this is a complete solution to security. I would call this "necessary but not sufficient". You won't get far as an engineer if you refuse to implement "necessary but not sufficient" changes because the change doesn't in and of itself one-shot the entire problem.

▲

rcxdude 35 minutes ago | parent [-]

The fact that it's not sufficient also largely means it's not necessary either, because the real solution is auditing and trusting the codebase as a whole. All you do when disabling install hooks is make a lot of situations much more difficult to handle.

▲

jitl 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

"make no mistakes" is not the "real solution"

	▲	rcxdude 21 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Neither is 'close the gate with no fence on either side of it'. If you want to run code, you either need to run it in a sandbox or trust it. Choosing to run only part of the code is not really a solution. (if you want to disable such hooks yourself, then you may get some security by diversity because you're not using the common configuration. But if it becomes the default then these worms will switch to a different vector)