From owner-cvs-libexec Wed Aug 2 20:41:32 1995 Return-Path: cvs-libexec-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id UAA14535 for cvs-libexec-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 1995 20:41:32 -0700 Received: from precipice.shockwave.com (precipice.shockwave.com [171.69.108.33]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id UAA14528 ; Wed, 2 Aug 1995 20:41:07 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by precipice.shockwave.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA15584; Wed, 2 Aug 1995 18:57:36 -0700 Message-Id: <199508030157.SAA15584@precipice.shockwave.com> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" cc: paul@freebsd.org, jkh@freefall.cdrom.com, CVS-commiters@freefall.cdrom.com, cvs-libexec@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/libexec/getty gettytab.5 main.c In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 02 Aug 1995 18:46:46 PDT." <5660.807414406@time.cdrom.com> Date: Wed, 02 Aug 1995 18:57:36 -0700 From: Paul Traina Sender: cvs-libexec-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk The point is that we have to find a reasonable compromise between security and convinience. We should, by default, ship secure, and make it convinient for someone to slit their own throat, if, and only if, they've been warned that they'll slit their throat. From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/libexec/getty gettytab.5 main.c > Actually, what we are arguing about is a philosophy. > > Taken to an extreme, you can follow the sun philosophy and ship a > unix system out of the box with "+" in /etc/host.equiv or you can > take the approach that we should ship a system that is reasonably > secure for someone to install out of the box on the net. Yes, but we're not talking about such extremes of security abuse and so this entire conversation is irrelevant. You set up a straw man and knock him down. Well done. But what does that have to do with anything? Jordan