Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:54:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Kenneth Culver <culverk@yumyumyum.org> To: Lucas Holt <luke@foolishgames.com> Cc: freebsd-questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: What version of BSD should I use Message-ID: <20030725125108.S24957@alpha.yumyumyum.org> In-Reply-To: <205079C8-BEC0-11D7-B8A9-0030656DD690@foolishgames.com> References: <205079C8-BEC0-11D7-B8A9-0030656DD690@foolishgames.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Sendmail works fine in FreeBSD 4.8. Named is considered insecure > because people use it. If you pick another product to be "safe", make > sure no one uses it. Any suggestion on this list would be to popular > to be "safe". As I said in my last email, people find holes in popular > software more often because they are looking. > Sendmail "works" fine, but it's slow and is really nasty to configure properly, which is why I suggested postfix. Named is considered insecure because it's insecure. It's a big program with lots of past exploits, and new ones being discovered very often. djbdns is very small, and has yet to have a single exploit found. (It's possible that's because people don't use it as much) I've also found that djbdns is significantly faster than named and easier to configure. > If you keep your software up to date, you are "safe" from named or > sendmail exploits. This is true on all platforms and will remain true. > (well ok microsoft doesn't fix everything) > You may be right here, but certain pieces of software have a history of being buggy and easily exploited; sendmail and named fit this description. Ken
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030725125108.S24957>