Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:58:34 -0400 (EDT) From: "Alexander N. Kabaev" <ak03@gte.com> To: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>, Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu>, Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Subject: Re: Rsh/Rlogin/Rcmd & friends Message-ID: <XFMail.000915175834.ak03@gte.com> In-Reply-To: <200009152136.e8FLaou26312@cwsys.cwsent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> So what! That's the price of security. I believe that the > telnet/ftp/"r" commands shouldn't even be ports. We need to make it > difficult to install unsafe software on the system. That way the admin > would have to go to all the trouble to find the source for unsafe > software somewhere on the Net, port it, and install it. Then it's not > FreeBSD's fault if that admin's system is compromised. Disabling corresponding inetd.conf entries will serve that purpose as well. Some of us work in places full of Unixes of all kinds and flavours and out-of-the-box interoperability argument presented by Steve makes a lot of sense in such an environment. "Everything is the package" idea is OK as long as we will retain the option of complete system upgrade using CVS/buildworld path. Forcing users to deal with every package separately will destroy that fuzzy feeling of completeness and tightly OS components integration FreeBSD was always famous for and IMHO will do more damage than good. Please count my voice as "strongly against" proposed code removal. 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?XFMail.000915175834.ak03>