Derek Martin wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, Tony Lambiris wrote:
>
> > Exactly. Just because you can't find an exploit for a service, doesn't mean
> > it's not out there. This is were I disagree with Red Hat enabling _everything_
> > by default. It's just a really stupid thing to do. Most people running Red Hat
>
> I've got to disagree... The philosophy is that if you install it, you want
> it, so it should be turned on. If you're that security concious (and you
> should be if your box is accessible from the void), DON'T do a default
> install, and customize your packages.
>
> > will be using it for a workstation, this they have no need for ftpd, or amd.
> > If it's going to be used as a server, then it's up to the admin to know what
> > to enable and how. It's as simple as that.
>
> Don't necessarily agree there either. Linux machines are often used for
> user education... how do you learn how to use something if you don't have
> it?
Therein lies the rub. RH makes it impossible to install things that you know you're
planning to learn to use, but to have them disabled until you learn how to configure
and use them properly. Trouble is, RH doesn't consider that there may be a learning
curve required to *disable* them until you've learned enough to want to enable
them. It's the old chicken and egg problem, and RedHat is helping breed foxes in
the henhouse (or some such fractured metaphor :-)
--BruceM
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
