Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:49:17 -0400 (AST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> To: lars <lars@gmx.at> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Total OT] Trying to improve some numbers ... Message-ID: <20060216194336.L60635@ganymede.hub.org> In-Reply-To: <43F4F43D.2090304@gmx.at> References: <20060216005036.L60635@ganymede.hub.org> <20060216053725.GB15586@parts-unknown.org> <20060216085304.GA52806@storage.mine.nu> <43F4CAA3.1020501@schultznet.ca> <43F4F43D.2090304@gmx.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, lars wrote: > If your machine only runs an NFS daemon and is behind a firewall, > ok, you don't need to patch it asap when an NFS SA and patch is issued, if > all clients connecting to the machine are benign. Actually, there are alot of situations where this sort of thing is possible ... hell, I could probably get away with running a FreeBSD 3.3 server since day one, that has all ports closed except for sshd, imap/pop3/smtp, and be 100% secury ... sshd can be easily upgraded without a reboot, with the same applying to imap/pop3/smtp if I use a port instead of what comes with the OS itself ... You can say you are losing out on 'stability fixes', else the server itself wouldn't stay up that long ... so about the only thing you lose would be performance related improvements and/or stuff like memory leakage ... And I could do this all *without* any firewalls protecting it ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060216194336.L60635>