From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Apr 24 15:17:38 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mailsrv.otenet.gr (mailsrv.otenet.gr [195.170.0.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2B0637B404; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:17:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hades.hell.gr (patr530-a180.otenet.gr [212.205.215.180]) by mailsrv.otenet.gr (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g3OMFfQ9022331; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 01:15:45 +0300 (EEST) Received: from hades.hell.gr (hades [127.0.0.1]) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g3OMFfRH003447; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 01:15:41 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (from charon@localhost) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.2/8.12.2/Submit) id g3OMCunD002902; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 01:12:56 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 01:12:55 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: Robert Watson Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" , Jordan Hubbard , Oscar Bonilla , Anthony Schneider , Mike Meyer Subject: Re: Security through obscurity? (was: ssh + compiled-in SKEY support considered harmful?) Message-ID: <20020424221255.GB1334@hades.hell.gr> References: <20020424090655.O6425@wantadilla.lemis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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