From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Jul 14 20:46:15 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from topsecret.net (gill.apk.net [207.54.148.62]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3FE2C14E21 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 20:46:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gill@topsecret.net) Received: from stumpy by topsecret.net with SMTP (MDaemon.v2.7.SP5.R) for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 23:45:00 -0400 From: "James Gill" To: Subject: is having the ports secure? Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 23:46:01 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Return-Path: gill@topsecret.net Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi.. If i'm trying to make a secure installation (for example a firewall box) that will run only a finite set of services (NAT, firewalling, DNS, and not very much else), wouldn't it be better (more secure) to not install the whole ports collection but only the specific ports for the services I want? Aside from the (forty?) megabytes I would save on the already pretty small disk. Am I on the right track here? ===================================== James Gill * http://www.topsecret.net ===================================== To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message