NetworkManager's had vulnerabilities over the years ( http://www.cvedetails.com/product/5634/Gnome-Networkmanager.... ), as has systemd. Stating this as a reason to switch is ridiculous. One can easily switch to a much more audited, secure scripting environment, such as ksh, and still have all the power scripting brings.
Not saying I agree with GP, but "the power scripting brings" can be part of the problem. Scripting is used as a means to execute arbitrary commands on a single level privilege (that of the user hooking the scripts, very often root or some high-privilege user) as opposed to a limited set of application-specific functionality. This adds a whole level of complexity to the system, which in security terms is typically the kind of thing that will give you trouble.
Agreed. When in security classes we were taught to use e.g. execve() instead of system(), it wasn't because shells were thought of as particularly vulnerable. You just want to use a tool that has the minimum possible feature set, so you can be sure that no one malicious will be able to trick you into using even correctly-functioning features (e.g. through shell injection).
Sort of a special case of the principle of minimum privilege, when applied to the feature set of your tools.
pretty much. scripting envs are extremely flexible and powerful, thus very prone to such issues. thats why you dont give user input to shells unless you want the user to have the full shell access. environment included.
