On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 11:05:26AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: > Andrew Sackville-West wrote in Article > <20070614180510.GA16458@localhost.localdomain> posted to > gmane.linux.debian.user: > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 11:08:39PM -0700, Mike McClain wrote: > >> I saw this on usenet and wonder about the validity of this statement. > >> > >> 'Seriously any system is as secure as the services you export, if you > >> have nothing listening that can do you harm you are secure...' > >> > >> Disregarding email exploits and exploits through your browser is this > >> true? Assume the hardware is inviolate. > >> Thoughts? > > > > a port with a listening service is like a locked door with a doorman > > inside waiting to open it for whoever knocks. If they know the > > codeword he'll open it for them. > > That's how port-knocking[1] works. you dropped the [1], but I'll google it. > > > So the service (as the doorman) determines how serious the security risk > > is at the port (door). > > Well, in theory, yes. The problem with this formula is that some services > are promiscuous and don't care who they serve to (http, finger, gopher, > etc). indeed. > > > If there is no service listening at the port, then there is no way to open > > that port. > > Outbound connections require ports, too! yeah. > > > Of course, since you are running Debian, there are no windows for > > things to climb through and open the door from the inside. ;) ^^ ---------------------------------------------------------------^^ > > Don't say things like that. What you just said there is like a Windows user > saying, "Why should I stay patched and run antivirus software? It's not > like I use this computer for anything serious..." except that it was a joke, and i so indicated. And I haven't drunk the kool-aid, or at least I've pissed it out by now, so i understand that I am only learning, and that's the best i can hope for. And its not as you describe it. What you describe is a completely irresponsible computer user who should not be allowed to use a computer because of the damage they are causing to others through their neglect. Whereas, what I said was that, ignoring the joke aspect, by running an inherently more secure system, the user is in a better position than if they were running windows. Granted, it was probably a little sophomoric, and in the right forum would be considered inflammatory, but it was certainly not more than what it was, a joke amongst generally like-minded folks. A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature