On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
> Mike Sensney wrote:
> >
> > At 12:26 PM 06/14/2001 -0500, David Douthitt wrote
>
> > Windows users who don't know Linux/ipchains should just skip installing a
> > LEAF firewall since it will add no protection? Well, that will simplify
> > things a lot for the new users page. "You don't know Linux? Don't use a
> > Linux based firewall!" :-)
>
> Oh, I see...... I guess my feelings run a little strong against the
> idea of treating computers as "buy-and-forget" appliances, especially
> when it comes to security. Anyone who's been around in arenas as
> diverse as law and copy-protection knows: there are flaws in the
> system and human beings will find them. You may be secure and safe
> now; tomorrow somebody will find a way in.
For me personally, my aim is not to build "black box appliances that need
no maintenance", but rather to build "network appliances that don't carry
Unix baggage unless if there's no alternatives". With my consumer hat on,
if I install an appliance to take care of a specific task for me, I don't
want to have to hassle with source configuration and all those other
wonderful Unix traits: I get an appliance because I want the job done
quickly with a device that is tuned for that specific purpose.
Think about it, a 500MB IDE harddrive to install FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Debian
Linux or whatever else on costs close to nothing. If I wanted a Unix
machine to do that task, I'd go and build one and wouldn't bother with
things like LRP. As a 'consumer', I go for LRP because I specifically
_don't_ want a "flexible, can do anything" solution, but a "stick it in,
configure it, stop worrying" one.
> Compromises have been found in traceroute, glibc, BIND, DHCP clients,
> and NTP since it came out. Until it was updated recently, all were
> still present as I understand it. All of these remain present in LRP
> I believe.
Local root-exploits should not be an issue with a routing appliance. If
you can get to a shell on a router, you already have more access than a
sensible network manager would let you have. This doesn't mean that these
things don't need fixing. Especially services deserve some attention,
although personally I wouldn't install BIND on a router even if they paid
me to do it ;).
> Consider even Linux 2.4 - which hasn't been out long - but already
> there was found a security flaw in FTP sessions going through
> iptables.
The 2.4 stack is a revolutionary design, which is the reason why I stick
with the 2.2 branch for now.
> > Still, a point well taken. It probably would be wise to institute an
> > advisory list for package updates and security issues.
>
> A very good idea - and very possibly, a good place for LEAF: to
> coordinate package updates, system updates, etc.
Absolutely.
> I see! One of the things I keep in the back of my mind is I want
> Oxygen to work just like Real UNIX(tm) - which is a second reason why
> vi is the default editor - but being a vi nut helps too :-)
We will probably perpetually disagree in our viewpoints here then. Which
doesn't matter, diversity == strength :)
> However, even with my bias, it doesn't mean things have to be hard to
> use, and I am a firm believer in ease of use - I just don't want "ease
> of use" to get translated to "don't worry, we'll take care of
> everything, we know what we're doing" as some corporations have done
> in the past.... I want to be able to muck things up :-)
Take a look at Cisco I'd say. I never have to compile IOS from source, but
they're pretty responsible in reporting security issues.
Cheers,
Pi
--
Head Development - Vuurwerk Internet (http://www.vuurwerk.nl/)
Brainbench MVP Unix Programming, twisted artist and Free Software idiot.
I need a mental stoma.
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
