Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:05:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> To: Marius Bendiksen <mbendiks@eunet.no> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc inetd.conf Message-ID: <200010111905.e9BJ59X21786@earth.backplane.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10010110202310.51005-100000@login-1.eunet.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:
:> Nobody is saying we should remove these programs, only that they
:> should not be turned on by default. They should be commented out
:> in inetd.conf (like everything else in inetd.conf) so the machine
:
:Why not make them turned on by default, and make a package which makes
:your system secureish? Such a package can be installed from the usual
:sysinstall procedure.
:
:> isn't poked full of holes when someone turns inetd on without looking
:> at inetd.conf. I can't imagine why anyone would do that, I guess
:
:"If someone points a gun at their foot, and pull the trigger, it is Unix'
:task to reliably deliver the bullet to it's intended target." - phk, iirc.
:
:It should not be our task to cover for people in such a fashion. If they
:are unable to secure the system by themselves, they can install such a
:security port. If they fail to do even that, then they can use Windows
:2000, which by most accounts is getting close to stableish.
:
:Marius
There's being 'reasonable' and there's being 'unreasonable'. This
type of argument doesn't wash when the reasonable thing to do, with
the availability of ssh, is to make things 'reasonably secure' by
default. You can't ask for more, but neither should you require
less. The lowest common denominator is not telnet or ftp any more.
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200010111905.e9BJ59X21786>