Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 16:59:22 +0400 (MSD) From: bag@sinbin.demos.su (Alex G. Bulushev) To: jseng@pobox.org.sg (James Seng) Cc: adam@homeport.org, jdn@qiv.com, robert+freebsd@cyrus.watson.org, vince@mail.MCESTATE.COM, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: security hole in FreeBSD Message-ID: <199707301259.QAA13164@sinbin.demos.su> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970730223202.0070ef8c@student.anu.edu.au> from "James Seng" at "Jul 30, 97 10:32:18 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> At 09:06 PM 7/29/97 -0400, Adam Shostack wrote: > > Let me be clear; I don't have anything against UUCP users, but > >most people don't need it turned on. Since its parts of it are > >setuid, (and thus potential security holes) I think its a reasonable > >to suggest that it ship either not setuid or as an install option. > > I have not heard of any request for the use UUCP from my users nor is my > UUCP binaries been used in the last few years...I think the time when lease > line is expensive, when university work with 9,600bps (wow) connection and > when UUCP rules the earth is over...we have to let it go and look forward. *8) > > I have nothing against UUCP of cos but it is always nice if we can reduce > the base distribution size by letting some of the less often used stuff away. this is not right, uucp very popular in exSU, more then 30% users read mail via uucp and this is not due to 9600 :) some users run uucp over ip ... big number of fbsd pc's working as uucp hosts sometimes without ip connections ... Alex. > > *cheers* > > -James Seng >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707301259.QAA13164>