Re: Start of portmap
On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 12:24:36PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
> Well, it has a priority of standard, which looks for me like it will be
> installed on default installations, which includes a lot of installation
> where it's not needed. And if then get's standard, this creates a
> security hole which is absolutely not needed.
Huh? What security hole would this be exactly? This seems like blatant FUD.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
-- Dave Clark
Reply to: