Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 01:12:55 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog@FreeBSD.ORG>, Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.freebsd.org>, Oscar Bonilla <obonilla@galileo.edu>, Anthony Schneider <aschneid@mail.slc.edu>, Mike Meyer <mwm-dated-1019955884.8b118e@mired.org> Subject: Re: Security through obscurity? (was: ssh + compiled-in SKEY support considered harmful?) Message-ID: <20020424221255.GB1334@hades.hell.gr> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020423205451.55944H-100000@fledge.watson.org> References: <20020424090655.O6425@wantadilla.lemis.com> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020423205451.55944H-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2002-04-23 21:38, Robert Watson wrote: > I'm more interested in the general issue here, since you made the general > assertion that there was a problem that stretched beyond this one issue. > I'm happy to entertain the idea that we discuss this specific issue in > more detail. In particular, the decision to not bind the X11 port might > take into account this particular implementation (XFree86), and whether we > can make this setting more accessible to the administrator (i.e., > something that could be mechanically twiddled, rather than through manual > editing of scripts...) Did I hear anyone say startx & startx.safe ? This might be a good idea. To have a default startx that is full of bells and whistles and anything that the newcomer to Unix will find amusing, and yet another startx.safe script that will have more tight defaults. Then, we should just add a paragraph to the startx manpage shortly stating their differences and update the SYNONPSIS section to include both scripts. What do you all think? - Giorgos To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020424221255.GB1334>