Re: We need a new subject- bug fixes

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Scott van Looy wrote:

Absolutely not! The way people using a distribution get updates is with 'yum update' or the equivalent. Otherwise, only experts will have anything updated. And the config files should be constructed such that most local changes are merged from /etc/sysconfig and thus updated files in an RPM can replace the previous unmodified copies.

so if an exploit is discovered we should just sit back and be hacked until someone else fixes it for us? That's just plain lazy

Have you re-written the kernel yourself after each exploit was discovered? I didn't, so I guess that makes me lazy. One of the reasons for picking a distribution should be how much you trust it to supply timely updates.

Sendmail is installed by default, you seem to want to have it able to connect to the internet by default too,

No, I want consistency among the network services. The way you enable it should match the way you'd enable sshd to listen to the network, or apache, cups, or dovecot, or perhaps the way you set up named as a caching nameserver.

I'd say this isn't what most users will require of it, indeed, many users don't even bother with sendmail. Therefore it shouldn't be the default. Or people will get exploited. Because we aim, by default, to have few open ports.

Note that sshd, dovecot, and cups have had possible exploits in various versions and thus should have equivalent treatment.

The point of security is to have as few ways to compromise a system available by default as possible. It makes sense to have a feature not available by default that isn't going to be needed by the majority of users, no?

The way to get security is to make the system consistent and easily understandable. If users need to hand-edit complex config files for common operations you haven't accomplished that. How, for example, would you advise a user to check for whether sendmail was active on the network or not, and how to change it? Why should this differ from what you'd say about dovecot? If every program is a special case, few people are going to understand the system well enough to keep it secure.

--
  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx

[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [SSH]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux