Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 11:29:59 -0700 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Brad Knowles <blk@skynet.be> Cc: Tom <tom@uniserve.com>, Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no>, Pascal Hofstee <daeron@Wit401305.student.utwente.nl>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: softupdates in latest build? Message-ID: <199909061829.LAA20185@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 06 Sep 1999 20:20:19 %2B0200." <v04205532b3f9b4bcedb9@[195.238.1.121]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> At 10:48 AM -0700 1999/9/6, Tom wrote: > > > Uhh... this isn't true at all. It is far from trivial to get root. > > Show me a rootkit that works on 3.2-stable. > > I don't need to. We're violating rule #1 of Cheswick & Bellovin > -- if you don't need something, don't run it. This fact alone should > be enough to cause this feature to be disabled by default. Again, it is imperative that you _read_ the technical discussions that preceeded this, or any, change before you leap in and criticise it blindly. In summary; bpf is enabled because it's needed. And your argument devolves to reductio ab absurdum, which is in and of itself absurd. > I'll say it again. If the choices are "security" or "no > security", and otherwise it doesn't make a whole lot of difference to > how it operates out-of-the-box, then why not choose security? I'll say it again; read what has already been said. Most of us are heartily sick of your side of the argument, and you're not likely to get many useful responses while you continue to display basic ignorance of the issues involved. -- \\ The mind's the standard \\ Mike Smith \\ of the man. \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ -- Joseph Merrick \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199909061829.LAA20185>