On Tuesday, 23 April 2002 at 16:35:55 -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Frank Mayhar wrote: >> Terry Lambert wrote: >>> FWIW: I wouldn't object to a firewall rule that disallowed remote >>> TCP connections to the X server by default, if the firewall is >>> enabled. I think we already have this... >> >> Yep, I agree, and whether or not it's in the distributed rc.firewall, I >> have the ports blocked in my hand-tuned version. >> >> As to Stijn's remarks, he is putting up a strawman at best. If a person >> runs X, it should be their responsibility to make sure that it's secure. >> Just like if they ran Windows or any other software with potential security >> holes. X is plastered with warnings as it is, why do we need to cripple a >> function it supports? Stijn, if it "opens up a hole in your network," >> that's _your_ problem, not mine. There are many other ways to secure your >> network than by turning off tcp connections by default in the X server. >> Hey, I'm not objecting to adding the capability, I'm just objecting to >> the fact that it was imposed upon everyone else by fiat and (worse) without >> warning. >> >> And before people start saying again that this only affects a port and is >> irrelevant to the operating system itself, this is one symptom of what I >> see as a worsening problem. > > I agree also. Remember what has been stated before, "Tools, not Policy". > If we want to disable this by default, then there should be a customary > knob _where people expect/can see it_. And if we are lacking the > mechanism to do it, then the change should wait until it is present. > It shouldn't be hacked into an unexpected place.
Agreed entirely. > I would like to see this backed out. I think it would be reasonable to fix it by tying it to the securelevel. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
