Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 00:02:09 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Disabling FTP (was Re: Why not sandbox BIND?) Message-ID: <19991122000209.J602@bitbox.follo.net> In-Reply-To: <199911201808.LAA10767@mt.sri.com>; from nate@mt.sri.com on Sat, Nov 20, 1999 at 11:08:52AM -0700 References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911120922190.85007-100000@jade.chc-chimes.c <4.2.0.58.19991112102309.045abf00@localhost> <19991112173306.D76708@florence.pavilion.net> <19991112212912.Z57266@rucus.ru.ac.za> <199911121946.LAA24616@apollo.backplane.com> <199911122114.OAA20606@mt.sri.com> <19991113012855.A62879@fasterix.frmug.org> <199911130031.RAA21117@mt.sri.com> <19991120190417.I602@bitbox.follo.net> <199911201808.LAA10767@mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Nov 20, 1999 at 11:08:52AM -0700, Nate Williams wrote: > > > Or, you could still easily disable ftpd since you almost *always* need > > > it right away. > > > > I've never, ever needed it. It transfers *cleartext* passwords. My > > view is that it is not usable for anything but anonymous FTP. > > So? *Most* of the FreeBSD boxes I setup are behind firewalls, or are > un-connected to the 'real' internet at first. Neither of these usually make it safe to transfer cleartext passwords. If you have a Windows box in your network with a "normal user" that recieve e-mail, you need to consider that network compromised. > I need something so I can transfer files to/from them to get them up > and running initially. <sarcasm> There is this thing known as 'outbound ftp'. This is run by the little program located at /usr/bin/ftp, or, for the ports collection, by /usr/bin/fetch. </sarcasm> The above mentioned programs are, from everything I've been able to gather based on doing various forms of support of the FreeBSD userbase, what normal users use. > > > FreeBSD's ftpd is not succeptible. Given the argument, why don't we > > > disable *ALL* network access, since all are suspect to breakins. :( (I'm > > > kidding of course...) > > > > I am in favour of disabling all network access to boxes as they come > > from install. > > NOT! Then we'd be worse than a windoze box. Drop your emotionalism and go with rational arguments, please. > I think most of you 'ISP' types are forgetting that *MOST* of the > FreeBSD boxes out there are installed by users, not big businesses. This is why I do NOT want to leave them high and dry by having them have their box rooted because YOU think it is convenient to have an insecure setup which THEY will never get any benefit from. For ISPs, I wouldn't see the present setup as a problem, because they are supposed to have people that know how to handle security. > Making the box unusable for most people, but 'secure' for a very small > portio of people is not a winning strategy. Most people do NOT need need network services running when they set up a new box. A lot of people get screwed by having extra services they do not need. Most users sit on the console of the box they are installing while doing initial setup, and most of those of them that feel they need access to the box from the network install ssh as their first thing to do in a shell on the box. Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19991122000209.J602>