> "Alan P. Laudicina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > > You are desperately in need for a shell, to read your email (via IMAP), > > > browse the net, check a domain name, or whatever. A machine is nearby > > > running the Hurd. > > > > > > You go to the machine and use it. > > > > > > > I started this thread and here is where I comment again. I see your above > > example and think of one of my own. A "script kiddy" gets ahold of a list > > of usernames and passwords of a machine at fakedomain.com. He is at the > > local university and needs a shell to telnet to the machine and use the > > illegally obtained login and passwords. A machine running The HURD is > > nearby... > > > This "script kiddie" will find his/her shell anywhere, even if there > is no HURD nearby... > Why make it easier???
It seems this whole argument comes down to the argument "So what? if we supply the login shell or not malicious users are still gonna find a way to be malicious". But why make it easy for them? I think we should make it as hard as possible for script kiddies to do such things to discourage it. from da Bobstopper
