From owner-freebsd-current Sun Sep 21 11:37:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA11742 for current-outgoing; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 11:37:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.scsn.net (scsn.net [206.25.246.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA11737 for ; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 11:37:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rhiannon.scsn.net ([208.133.153.90]) by mail.scsn.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-41950U6000L1100S0) with ESMTP id AAA221; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 14:38:37 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by rhiannon.scsn.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) id OAA00982; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 14:36:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19970921143658.25804@scsn.net> Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 14:36:58 -0400 From: "Donald J. Maddox" To: Alex Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Problems with -current ppp Reply-To: dmaddox@scsn.net References: <19970921110054.48267@scsn.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.81 In-Reply-To: ; from Alex on Sun, Sep 21, 1997 at 11:05:22AM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, Sep 21, 1997 at 11:05:22AM -0700, Alex wrote: > > > On Sun, 21 Sep 1997, Donald J. Maddox wrote: > > > Ok. My IP addres is dynamically assigned by my ISP (scsn.net), so the most > > I can tell you is that it will be ppp???.coladlp?.scsn.net. I usually only > > use the PPP connection long enough to get my email, then kill it. Most > > incoming connections are denied by tcp wrappers. Good luck :-) > > TCP Wrappers are kinda a moot point, as that's not where the hole lies. > That's like putting a deadbolt on the back door, and leaving the front one > wide open. > > > Seriously, I understand the need for security in ppp, and I would rather have > > it secureable even if it means a little inconvenience (like having to type a > > password). However, since the window of insecurity is so small in this case, > > if I can trade security for convenience, I will. > > Uh, this isn't exactly a small hole, especially if you run it as root (not > suid). > > > This is not an appeal to have ppp's security enhancements reverted. Clearly, > > making ppp more secure is a Good Thing. > > Yes. You seem to be missing my point. I have almost _no need_ for security on this connection because I am the only one with physical access to it, and the network exposure it sees is extremely small. You may recall that this thread started because I was looking for a way to start ppp without having to type a password, and I found it. I was not looking for instructions on how to make this box C2-certified.