On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 20:46, chort wrote: > On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 19:48, James Sparenberg wrote: > > On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 19:28, chort wrote: > > > On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 18:10, Jack Coates wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 13:08, James Sparenberg wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > I like Todd's method rpm -e msec --nodeps and then put it into the urpmi > > > > > skip list *grin* > > > > > > > > > > James > > > > > > Whaaaa? Uninstall msec??? It's a GREAT tool. I'm glad Mandrake > > > includes it. Just because you're running Linux doesn't mean you're > > > immune for any sort of attacks. Ripping out the security mechanisms is > > > a good way to make it a target. > > > > > > Learn to use msec correctly instead of banishing anything you don't > > > understand. > > > > > > IF someone gets through 2 (or 5) firewalls depending on my location... > > they probably aren't going to be slowed down by msec. Yes it's a great > > tool. But not a panacea. C is a great language but lousy for fast > > prototyping. Need to apply the tool where need and not as a catch all. > > > > James > > Point taken, but neither are firewalls a holistic solution. There are > many avenues of attack which firewalls were never designed to stop. > Besides, just having lots of layers doesn't mean security is increased. > If all the firewalls run the same software/firmware or have the same > hardware weakness, they can all be bypassed just as easily.
True enough > > I see msec as more protection against people who have permission to use > the machine, not unauthorized outside access. According to most > estimates, 80-90% of attacks happen from the inside so it's really those > users you have to worry about any way. herein lies the rub... On the boxes I remove it from there is one user ..... Me.... or, I have some destructive testing boxes that msec is just too helpful for. (We'd double the setup time making constant adjustments to msec so .... away it goes.) > I just have a knee-jerk reaction when ever someones solution to > inconvenient security mechanisms is to automatically remove them. Some > are needed simply to protect us from ourselves. I don't need to be protected from myself. If I screw up. I pay the price. If I wanted to be protected from myself I'd run windows. Or run all of my boxes via knoppix without HDD's (screw up reboot it's back to what was.) of course data preservation would be a bear. > > Sure, the most usable computers are those without all the burden of > security, but by the same token it's easiest to destroy someones work on > an unprotected machine, so a balances needs to be struck. msec and > Bastille (hope I spelled that right) are two very useful lockdown > utilities. Just because they can occasionally be annoying doesn't mean > they should be whole-sale removed. Remember one thing. Whatever an automated system does for you it also does to you. Annoyances.. nah when something is annoying it gets squashed. (flies, mosquitos etc) When it is counter productive and causes me to spend more time "fixing" it than doing real work... it gets pulled. (And yes I ran windows without IE) James
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
