[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: slink -> potato

On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 09:57:12AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > As far as I know, leaving inetd accepting connections would,
> > worst case, fail -- which is no different from having the service
> > disabled. In other words, I don't see that disabling the daemon
> > solves anything useful.

On Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 08:15:54AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> I think the worst case would be a telnetd linked with a broken
> shlib (or in the case of telnetd, perhaps a missing or broken
> /usr/lib/telnetd/login) that gives a security hole. If you wish to
> minimise downtime, the proper way to do it IMHO is to have certain
> packages flagged as daemons, and they should be upgraded (by whatever
> program that is in charge) one by one.

Under what circumstances would this be in effect during an
upgrade but not otherwise?


Reply to: