From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Dec 20 0:19: 2 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from turtle.looksharp.net (cc360882-d.strhg1.mi.home.com [24.13.43.207]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B99837B405 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 00:19:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by turtle.looksharp.net (Postfix, from userid 1003) id 26BF93EB9; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 03:20:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turtle.looksharp.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AFD2BAA5; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 03:20:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 03:20:59 -0500 (EST) From: "Brandon D. Valentine" To: Jamie Oulman Cc: Brad Knowles , Subject: Re: Just lost one to Linux. Compaq server support. In-Reply-To: <20011220011035.A18793@techsquare.com> Message-ID: <20011220031755.O21508-100000@turtle.looksharp.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Jamie Oulman wrote: > redhat like most everything else. can be secured. :s/can/cannot/ Yields: redhat like most everything else. cannot be secured. That's a misleading statement. Nothing can be secured. You can only do your best to protect a system from /known/ vulnerabilities. There's no telling who's out there reading source code and finding exploits without reporting them. It's hopefully not a common scenario, but the possibility exists. There's no way to say for certain that a given box is uncrackable. I know this is not what you meant by your statement, but the distinction is an important one to make IMO. Brandon D. Valentine -- "Iam mens praetrepidans avet vagari." - G. Valerius Catullus, Carmina, XLVI To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message