Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 05:01:50 -0600 (CST) From: Frank Tobin <ftobin@uiuc.edu> To: security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Disabling FTP (was Re: Why not sandbox BIND?) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.9911220435140.22770-100000@isr4033.urh.uiuc.edu> In-Reply-To: <38391B04.9F5FD39D@vangelderen.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jeroen C. van Gelderen, at 11:29 on Mon, 22 Nov 1999, wrote: > > As a relative newbie, having ftpd on by default makes perfect sense. > > Are you saying that you cannot manually enable ftpd if you need it? Nope, you aren't going to be able to manually enable ftpd if you're a newbie to unix. You could, but how are you going to find out how? A newbie will think that ftpd is part of 'base unix', and expect it to be functional when they install. > Good for them, but it's not the newbies we primarily target methinks. FreeBSD doesn't attempt to target newbies, but why make it difficult for them to get a functional box? > Exactly, so you can just *enable* ftpd while you are munging with the > config. This renders the box insecure but at least you explicitly > authorized the act of enabling. You're making a real bold statement that just opening up ftpd leaves the box wide open. This is not a good assumption. As one person stated before, it is not the ftpd being up that renders a box insecure, but the sending of cleartext passwords to it is the problem. If you don't send cleartext passwords to it, you're not at risk. > Isn't muning configuration files the first thing you do when you > install a FreeBSD box? It is for me. That's great! Me too! So what's the problem with turning off what you don't need then not turn off then? I never found it a real pain to do so (just fetch a pre-configured inetd.conf to do the job, and voila, tightened system). > So? He's supposed to read the documentation or telnet to port 20/21 > or start with Linux first. Which documentation? There is so much out there that a newbie isn't going to know where to look. Sure, we've all been trained "read the README" file before you install a particular application, but aren't things so much nicer so you don't have to? Good application design doesn't make a new user learn the full system before he gets a chance to use it. Actually, I think FreeBSD is an easier OS to use than Linux, but that's another issue. We're discussing FreeBSD here. Let's not start discussions like "well, FreeBSD isn't meant to do this, so we won't even contemplate it." > People expect UNIX to be secure, so this argument doesn't really > hold, does it? This may just be me, but I think people expect unix to be a powerhouse of tools more than a secure box; heck, use DOS if you want network security. :) > Hmm, makes me think: does Solaris ship with ftpd enabled by default? Solaris ships with a _whole_ bunch of thing enabled by default. A _lot_ more than FreeBSD. I think it seems clear by now that people on both sides of the trenches of this debate have hunkered in, and won't budge. Linux distributors Red Hat and Mandrake solved the issue by presenting the user an option at install time similar to "do you want server/workstation/custom machine". I vote that we do something similar; just present the user an option at install time. I don't think anyone has objections to this solution. -- Frank Tobin http://www.neverending.org/~ftobin/ "To learn what is good and what is to be valued, those truths which cannot be shaken or changed." Myst: The Book of Atrus OpenPGP: 4F86 3BBB A816 6F0A 340F 6003 56FF D10A 260C 4FA3 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.9911220435140.22770-100000>