From owner-freebsd-current Sat Sep 5 23:56:37 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA11229 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 23:56:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from smtp02.primenet.com (smtp02.primenet.com [206.165.6.132]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA11224 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 23:56:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert@usr01.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp02.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA29492; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 23:56:35 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr01.primenet.com(206.165.6.201) via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpd029473; Sat Sep 5 23:56:26 1998 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA13597; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 23:56:22 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199809060656.XAA13597@usr01.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Should FreeBSD-3.0 ship with RFC 1644 (T/TCP) turned off by To: dg@root.com Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 06:56:22 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tom@uniserve.com, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199809060551.WAA10205@implode.root.com> from "David Greenman" at Sep 5, 98 10:51:26 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > Ugh... really? I use Livingston Portmaster's and FreeBSD heavily. > > > > Be aware that (depending on the model) Portmasters have had a long > >history, and some sites are still running 4 year old firmware on them. > >Always get the ComOS version. > > Terry's assertion about the Livingston being broken is the first I've > seen. Previously all of the reports of brokeness were with Annex terminal > servers. You should subscribe to the portmaste-users list. Basically, if you are running old code, you are at risk. If you are running new code, then you are not at risk. Typically, everyone is not at risk. It is the atypical case where someone has not updated (perhaps because they want to be a haven for systtems crackers depending on old security holes). Portmaster and Annex hardware were both at risk. There are about three others, including the Cyclades RAS server, which *used to be* at risk. If you don't update code, expect the extensions to fail. That said, one of the reasons for leaving the extensions on by default is to ensure that people complain about RFC non-compliance. I, for one, wuld e unhappy if FreeBSD disabled these by default, even though it's perfectly reasonable for my employer to disable them on their derived work. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message