From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Aug 24 20:25:46 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F87337B423 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:25:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from billy-club.village.org (billy-club.village.org [10.0.0.3]) by rover.village.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA73315; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 21:25:42 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@billy-club.village.org) Received: from billy-club.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by billy-club.village.org (8.9.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id VAA31807; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 21:25:52 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <200008250325.VAA31807@billy-club.village.org> To: James Housley Subject: Re: nuking "unsafe" protocols (was Re: Upcoming rc.conf changes not loading certain currently loaded daemons) Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:56:28 EDT." <39A59A0C.7588265E@thehousleys.net> References: <39A59A0C.7588265E@thehousleys.net> <251BF6012D6B4A49A4109B1C3289A7B5BB78@purgatory.jumpweb.com> <39A59992.F42F03EC@denverweb.net> Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 21:25:52 -0600 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <39A59A0C.7588265E@thehousleys.net> James Housley writes: : blaine wrote: : > Umm, why not just use openbsd if security is the primary concern? : > : Why shouldn't we provide the best level of security possible, using : OpenBSD as a target? We should be targetting things at a much higher level than OpenBSD :-) Otherwise we run the risk of being an "also ran" in the security area. theo and folks over there have done a good job, and we need to do better. We're not there yet, however. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message