Re: Why is BSD more secure?
From: Tim Haynes (usenet@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk)Date: 05/23/02
- Next message: Simon Matthews: "Re: think I may have been rootkitted"
- Previous message: Zergin: "Re: Maby a litle OT but: apache+sh CGI script"
- In reply to: svek: "Re: Why is BSD more secure?"
- Next in thread: svek: "Re: Why is BSD more secure?"
- Reply: svek: "Re: Why is BSD more secure?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: Tim Haynes <usenet@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk> Date: 23 May 2002 18:31:34 +0100
svek <svekSPAM-NO-MORE@gmx.net> writes:
> And BTW the r* services such as rhost, rsync etc were deleoped for the
> BSD OS before they were adopted by others, and these are fairly secure
> right?
I don't think you want to include rsync in your list of r-services,
somehow. You meant rusers, ruptime, rsh, rexec. Portmapper-using cretinous
lumps of code.
> I'm not trying to start a flame war, I use linux and do like it, but if
> people want to use *BSD, tru64, solaris etc it's fine by me just don't
> claim you can make them more secure over any other UNIX like OS.
> They were all developed from the same idea of use.
Pretty well put :)
~Tim
-- A big sky above me, |piglet@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk West winds blow. |http://spodzone.org.uk/
- Next message: Simon Matthews: "Re: think I may have been rootkitted"
- Previous message: Zergin: "Re: Maby a litle OT but: apache+sh CGI script"
- In reply to: svek: "Re: Why is BSD more secure?"
- Next in thread: svek: "Re: Why is BSD more secure?"
- Reply: svek: "Re: Why is BSD more secure?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|