David Cantrell [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*>And yet this is not Linux's fault.  It is the fault of:
*>  the person who set it up wrongly in the first place
*>  the network people for making their network so vulnerable to this
*>    sort of predictable stupidity

OpenBSD hasn't had a exploitable base install in years. They would
probably have a different view as I would. A firewall doesn't replace
reasonable host-based security. Besides, this was academia where one would
be happy to have a computer at all, much less a firewall. Although, I must
admit ATM to the desktop was rather swank. 

RedHat has been sloppy for years and it's no amazing wonder that people
without a lot of experience who install these boxes threaten compromise to
networks and others around them. If it's so predictable then, why not fix
it. This was a world famous AI prof who just wanted a linux box to play
with on his desk and did nothing more than install it from cd as I recall.
Granted, when I worked there we wouldn't have allowed him to install it
without an audit of some sort, but still, I find that to be a sloppy way
to go about distributing a product that is so vulnerable with a base

*>> I have a farm of suns, if you want to make a benchmark, I'll be very
*>> interested to run and compare the results.
*>Benchmarks aren't particularly useful.

:) No they aren't, but it would be amusing to see just how Debian


Reply via email to