Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:21:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca> Cc: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu>, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Rsh/Rlogin/Rcmd & friends Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000915175640.8033A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <200009152136.e8FLaou26312@cwsys.cwsent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group wrote: > In message <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000915165626.99A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>, > Daniel Ei > schen writes: > > On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Will Andrews wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 04:24:23PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > > > What consequences? Remember, we'll still have ports for these things. > > > > > It only matters as far as new installations go. Post-install operation > > s > > > > > are unimportant. > > > > > > > > Wrong. If that were true tcsh wouldn't be in the base system today. > > > > > > You misinterpreted me. I meant in this specific case, post-install > > > operation doesn't matter. People can use ssh to get in the machines to > > > do things rsh/rlogin/rcmd offer. > > > > No, you haven't proven to me that removal of rsh/rlogin/rcmd doesn't > > break anything like remote backups. As Steve Kargl wrote: > > > > > > What are the consequences of your proposal with the use of > > > > rdump/rrestore from another (non-FreeBSD) machine into a > > > > tape drive equipped FreeBSD box? > > > > To me that means that something that use to work "out of the box" will > > not work without adding the necessary port(s). Sure, you can argue that > > you can easily install the port, but the same could be said to folks > > that wanted tcsh as their default shell. > > 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. It was difficult enough to get our users comfortable enough with even using telnet and ftp, and I don't want to waste any more of my software engineering time in user education. If you want a anally secure box by default, run OpenBSD. But you don't need to _remove_ telnet,ftp,r* from the src tree to get a secure system from installation. You could easily have an install option that removes (or doesn't install) your unsafe programs. And I am against 10^6 install options, regardless of whether Linux, Solaris, or any other UN*X does it that way. -- Dan Eischen 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?Pine.SUN.3.91.1000915175640.8033A-100000>