Bug#81118: base: Wishlist: High security base system (or separate add-on package)
Arthur Korn wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Joey Hess schrieb:
> > If it is a daemon that binds to a port, and it doesn't have "secure" in its
> > name or "encryption" in its description, it's gotta be insecure.
>
> Debians minimal system (what's called 'standard') is to fat.
> Regardless of how secure it is, many boxes just don't need the
> portmapper or a telnet _daemon_ (I don't mind about the client,
> I prefer netcat though). The minimal system should really be
> minimal, let dependencies do the rest.
What? I'd like to be sure to have a telnet daemon fixed in when I do
an installation over network. What will you gain by excluding telnet
daemon other than satisfying some security paranoid out there? Raving
for a few kb's?
The only way to be really secure is to blow up your computer, and send
the pieces into deep space.
--
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo
Reply to: