Many years ago I read theological arguments of what constituted heresy and what
constituted dogma. You brought back many memories Michael.
Joe
Michael Perry wrote:
> On 7 Jan, Dana J. Laude wrote:
> >
> > Michael Johnson wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Rick Chandler wrote:
> >> > >You should have your machine secure if you are connected to the
> >> > >internet at all....not just because you are using IRC. There are
> >> > >other ways to discover your IP than having it discovered on IRC. IRC
> >> > >isn't the culprit...its poor administration.
> >> > I'll give you that. How many newbies do we have using Linux who don't
> >> > know about security at all? My statement is that if your going to use a
> >> > program that will easily give you someones IP address, then you'd better
> >> > secure your system. I didn't have mine secure because, I really don't
> >> > care, if it gets distroyed then I just simply re-install it. Others
> >> > system are most likely more valuable to them than me.
> >>
> >> With all due respect, someone who doesn't even bother having a password
> >> for the root
> >> account is certainly the LAST person who should be giving advice TO
> >> ANYONE on system adminstration and unix/linux security. There is no
> >> rational justification for it. There is nowhere
> > <snip>
> >>
> >> A billion other things, but you get the point. If you use Linux, Solaris,
> >> FreeBSD, it is not like using Windows. It's a different mentality. I don't
> >> mean to preach, but I feel like even though all this sounds insanely
> >> obvious, that it apparently needed saying.
> >
> > First off, since I started this thread..., thanks to all that helped
> > with my original question. Now specifically to Michael, you have a
> > very valid point, it just seems that those coming into Linux from the
> > Windows world are totally unaware of most, if not all of the security
> > issues with Linux. Now, SuSE has a pretty good manual..., but it
> > doesn't really get into security issues to well. Remember all of
> > those manuals you got with SCO, ESIX, Xenix and Solaris? ;-)
> > I'm not aware of any site that has specific FAQ's on Linux security
> > issue's (as in how to bulletproof your system type) but it sounds
> > like a worth while project, although I would assume such info
> > already exists. Also to be fair to those migrating for the world
> > of Windows 9x, security is a nonexistent feature. (ok, they
> > have a login box that you hit cancel at.;) Being that they no
> > not what they do when running stuff as root, (I'd say 99% of
> > which is because root works, stuff as a user does not) and they
> > don't know how to fix permissions, or add the user to a specific
> > group. It's not a matter of being stupid, just unaware of the
> > what they are doing. (well, at least in *most* cases)
> >
> > That's about it. ;)
> >
> > Dana
> > --
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dana J. Laude, Fluid Computer Designs Ltd (US)
> > -
> > To get out of this list, please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> > this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
> > Check out the SuSE-FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/ and the
> > archiv at http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html
>
> Since I like using "insecure" things like irc and looking at basic
> security issues such as protecting my little investment I am interested
> in both sides of this debate. I could imagine Jerry Springer landing
> this juicy tidbit; saying, "Today its rich stuff. The folks that don't
> password protect their root accounts and their lives". My interest is
> more than just from a personal level. I want to protect my investment
> in both learning this stuff and knowing that I understand that running
> a linux workstation is not the same as "using a win98 desktop". I do
> both sometimes and I use NT sometimes and I have watched people get
> their NT systems messed up with no admin password.
>
> Now one point is that a personal investment that one has no interest in
> does not have to be protected since the person is making his or her own
> decision regarding its importance. The other valid point is that it
> makes a statement about how and what we all do or in common
> sociological terms we are labelled. As a sociologist friend one told
> me, "it doesn't matter if the label is true or not. What matters is
> that it was applied".
>
> So my interest is in protecting my investment even if its useless. I
> am the final arbiter in what is useful to me. But others along the way
> can determine whether they can take away that use. If I can protect
> even the uselessness so I can make a decision; more points for me. But
> you know what? Anything that has so much time put into it as a linux
> workstation is not useless. For why would someone build something, do
> all the work, then to just let it get torn down by something as
> careless as a password not applied? So, my point is - I want to protect
> what I value. Its not a matter of being unaware or not understanding
> or running stuff as root; although thats all important stuff. To me,
> its a matter of what I value and what linux provides that I value.
>
> And thats it for me.
> --
>
> Michael E. Perry
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ------------------
>
> -
> To get out of this list, please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
> Check out the SuSE-FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/ and the
> archiv at http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html
-
To get out of this list, please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
Check out the SuSE-FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/ and the
archiv at http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html
