Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 08:03:12 -0600 From: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com> To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: uptime 4.0 Message-ID: <3FCDED20.8050508@centtech.com> In-Reply-To: <3FCDE98B.8020701@401.cx> References: <002b01c3b99e$a1dc3340$6c01a8c0@MITERDOMAIN> <3FCDE98B.8020701@401.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg wrote: > Todays internet is to hostile for systems that isnt frequently and > regularly patched and maintained. Just curious, but, has anyone ever heard of a firewall? I typically don't let my machines be accessed from the internet, and I don't run services on an box that isn't needed. I'm just saying that there are levels of security - any machine touching the net (we all agree here) should have the latest patches and updates, without a doubt. What about a box that is internal, that doesn't allow local user logins, and/or runs a minimal amount of services (say, httpd and sshd)? Of course, those tools should be patched, and why not do the others too - but no reboot is needed for a lot of patches. I just think that "large uptime = bad admin" is a pretty shallow and close minded way to stereotype people based on how long a machine has been powered on without a reboot. Nobody said "1200 days without a security patch! woohoo!".. Anyway, this thread should probably move to -chat.. Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Systems Administrator Centaur Technology All generalizations are false, including this one. ------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3FCDED20.8050508>