[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >On Tue, 5 Feb 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> What is the security communities recommendation on naming servers? Is >> it safe to name a server by the function the server provides? > > There's two vastly opposed views on server nomenclature. The >first holds that server names must be meaningful to human wetware. So if >you have a Sun Microsystems SPARC server running SMTP, it should be named >smtp.foo.com or sun-mail.foo.com. Likewise for a Linux system running DNS >(dns-slack.foo.com or ns.foo.com) and so on. > > Then there's the second camp that holds that no system should bear >a name that describes its function; that such information aids attackers >in mapping your networks for intrusion. Those people believe you should >name your server something that's only meaningful to you or has no meaning >at all (something like al-8723-bls.foo.com). <snip>
personally I am rather fond of using names that are easy to remember but really wouldn't mean anything to people outside. For example my old employer used names of mountains. it was easy for us to remeber the names and associate them to what they were because they were things like Ranier rather than"al-8723-bls.foo.com" but would mean little to those outside the company. > > William Barrett HRIS Systems Administrator U-Haul International 602.263.6625 x4856 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
