Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 11:27:50 +0200 (EET) From: Petri Helenius <pete@sms.fi> To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Risk of having bpf0? (was URGENT: Packet sniffer found on my system) Message-ID: <199612110927.LAA02201@silver.sms.fi> In-Reply-To: <199612110745.SAA23084@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> References: <199612110716.JAA01999@silver.sms.fi> <199612110745.SAA23084@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael Smith writes: > Petri Helenius stands accused of saying: > > I think one consideration here is that to run some of the desired > > functionality, like dhcpd, you need to have them. > > Not on a _shell_server_ you don't. If you're in the business of offering > shell access (which is fortunately becoming rarer), your shell machines > need to be _watertight_, which normally involves removing just about > everything. > We're in violent agreement here. On both the tightness and the fact that it's becoming rarer. Pete
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612110927.LAA02201>