Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 12:40:49 -0400 From: "Peter C. Lai" <sirmoo@cowbert.2y.net> To: Trevor Johnson <trevor@jpj.net> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net>, Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG>, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Default ssh protocol in -STABLE [was: HEADS UP: FreeBSD-STABLE now has OpenSSH 3.4p1] Message-ID: <20020801124049.B18439@cowbert.2y.net> In-Reply-To: <20020801083631.H19455-100000@blues.jpj.net>; from trevor@jpj.net on Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 08:38:11AM -0400 References: <xzpeldi21uq.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <20020801083631.H19455-100000@blues.jpj.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 08:38:11AM -0400, Trevor Johnson wrote: > On 1 Aug 2002, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > > > Trevor Johnson <trevor@jpj.net> writes: > > > This is the section of http://www.openbsd.org/security.html#default which > > > I had hoped you would read: > > > [...] > > > > This is the section of Webster's 7th edition dictionary which I had > > hoped you would read: > > > > 1. no \(')n{o-}\ av [ME, fr. OE n{a-}, fr. ne not + > > {a-} always; akin to ON & OHG ne not, L ne-, Gk > > n{e-}- -- more at AYE] chiefly Scot > > 1a: NOT > > Why not? Do you have a reason? Production level reasons. 1. We already stated that it would be difficult for management of large installations to do this. 2. Stable is supposed to be stable. We've still got lots of people on 4.2,4.3,4.4, and 4.5 out there who are living quite nicely with their setups. We've got people who's installation is destined to sit in a corner to gather dust and do some processing every day, week, or month while the maintainers have either left or moved on and no one really notices it is there but would seriously "miss" it should it be disturbed in some way. (Note that lack of maintenance doesn't imply that the system wasn't set up or designed for this eventuality). This means that getting rid of protocol 1 completely really wouldn't "increase" the number of secure systems from a statistical standpoint. 3. We aren't OpenBSD. Our target audience is somewhat different. We wish to deliver an enterprise level operating solution for free. That is all we claim to do. We aren't trying to set any records (regarding security or otherwise). Making other people's lives harder for the sake of some hypothetical gains isn't good customer service or marketing. Migrate to OpenBSD if you want that sort of thing (and post your wishes on their mailing lists instead of here). </rant> > > > 1b: -- used as a function word to express the negative of an alternative > > choice or possibility > > 2: in no respect or degree -- used in comparisons > > 3: not so -- used to express negation, dissent, denial, or refusal > > How do you dissent? > > > 4: -- used with a following adjective to imply a meaning expressed by the > > opposite positive statement <~ uncertain terms> > > 5: -- used as a function word to emphasize a following negative or to > > introduce a more emphatic, explicit, or comprehensive statement > > 6: -- used as an interjection to express surprise, doubt, or incredulity > -- > Trevor Johnson > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message -- Peter C. Lai University of Connecticut Dept. of Molecular and Cell Biology | Undergraduate Research Assistant Yale University School of Medicine SenseLab | Center for Medical Informatics | Research Assistant http://cowbert.2y.net/ 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?20020801124049.B18439>