Thanks for the tremendous response to my initial question. As many of you suspected, the sysadmin mainly needed to know that I was more than a casual user of linux. I politely, and deferentially, explained that I would only need to run an ssh server, and that I am quite conscientious when it comes to security. I also agreed to give him root access, and agreed that running periodic port scans was a good idea. He was very cool about everything. He actually uses linux himself at home. He explained that his boss, an administrator (the business kind, not the technical kind), was the one being heavy handed about linux. Part of the reason is also because they are a little shell-shocked from a recent barrage of problems with people running MacOS X improperly.
Basically, I tried to give him as much information as possible to help him make the case to his boss that my linux box would not be a threat - at least no more than any other computer on the network. It sounds like I will not have to sign the agreement stating my responsibility for any financial loss if my box were hacked. However, this is not yet certain. I have decided, with the advice of many on this group, to refuse to sign if they ask. The sysadmin agreed that it is a foolish thing to do, as even the most secure boxes are never totally secure. Again, it is his boss that is using this as a scare tactic. I think, all things considered, it is a happy ending (or is it just the beginning?). The only thing I am still disappointed about is they won't let me mount unix shares via samba or nfs. He suggested that this is something they will eventually have to change as more people move to linux. I hope so. In any event, thanks to everyone who offered advice and support. You were a great help. Regards, Brian -- Brian J. Stults Doctoral Candidate Department of Sociology University at Albany - SUNY Phone: (518) 442-4652 Fax: (518) 442-4936 Web: http://www.albany.edu/~bs7452
