From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 25 09:55:19 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD5B337B404 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhub.yumyumyum.org (dsl092-171-091.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.92.171.91]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC99543F93 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:55:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from culverk@yumyumyum.org) Received: by mailhub.yumyumyum.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 708E167; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:54:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.yumyumyum.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BA165F; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:54:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:54:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Kenneth Culver To: Lucas Holt In-Reply-To: <205079C8-BEC0-11D7-B8A9-0030656DD690@foolishgames.com> Message-ID: <20030725125108.S24957@alpha.yumyumyum.org> References: <205079C8-BEC0-11D7-B8A9-0030656DD690@foolishgames.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: Peter Rosa cc: freebsd-questions Subject: Re: What version of BSD should I use X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 16:55:20 -0000 > 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