RE: Re: FreeBSD Security Survey
- From: "FreeBSD User" <fbsd@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 22 May 2006 15:20:11 -0000
As an administrator, time is always an issue. FreeBSD has proven
itself time and again. Having said that, one "wish" would be to have
a default/built-in security update mechanism.
Since time is always and issue, if the system could by default
(without an admin having to write scripts and/or apps, or manually
update) update itself for both system and installed ports/packages, it
likely would reduce security issues exponentially.
This of course would be a massive project/challenge. Varying system
and kernel configurations alone would make this a huge challenge, not
to mention the potential security implications.
The survey is a great idea. I suggest adding a section for
administrators to add comments and/or "wishes".
Brent Casavant wrote:
On Sun, 21 May 2006, Colin Percival wrote:
X, GUI´s, and desktops are in the mix -- though I
In order to better understand
which FreeBSD versions are in use, how people are (or aren´t) keeping
them updated, and why it seems so many systems are not being updated, I
have put together a short survey of 12 questions.
I applaud this survey, however question 9 missed an important point,
at least to me. I was torn between answering "less than once a month"
and "I never update".
While I find ports to be the single most useful feature of the FreeBSD
experience, and can´t thank contributors enough for the efforts, I on
the other hand find updating my installed ports collection (for security
reasons or otherwise) to be quite painful. I typically use portupgrade
to perform this task. On several occasions I got "bit" by doing a
portupgrade which wasn´t able to completely upgrade all dependencies
always follow the special Gnome upgrade methods when appropriate).vey. Thanks for taking the time put the survey together, I
I can´t rule out some form of pilot error, but the end result was pain.
After several instances of unsatisfactory portupgrades (mostly in the
5.2 through early 5.4 timeframe), I adopted the practice of either not
upgrading ports at all for the life of a particular installation on a
machine (typically about one year), or when necessary by removing *all*
ports from the machine, cvsup´ing, and reinstalling. This has served
me quite well, particularly considering the minimal threat profile these
particularly systems face.
So, in short, that´s why *I* rarely update ports for security reasons.
There are steps that could be taken at the port maintenance level that
would work well for my particular case, however that´s beyond the scope
of the sur
certainly hope it proves useful.I share this frustration with you. I was once told that the pain in
upgrading is due largely to a somewhat invisible difference between
installing a pre-compiled package, and building+installing a port. In
theory, if you stick to one method or the other, things will stay mostly
consistent. But if you mix them, and particularly if you update the
ports tree in the process, the end result is a bit more undefined. One
thing that I wish for is that the ports tree would branch for releases,
and that those branches would get security updates. I know that this
would involve an exponentially larger amount of effort from the ports
team, and I don´t fault them for not doing it. Still, it would be nice
freebsd-stable@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
freebsd-security@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"