Matthew Burgess wrote on a possible "securing" of LFS by moving away from the inetutils binaries and concluded:
> Whilst researching this was quite enlightening, I think that such system > hardening really does fall into "your distro, your rules". Clients such > as ftp and telnet are still largely useful, and therefore I think it > should be up to each sysadmin to determine whether they definitely do > not require the functionality they provide. That's exactly what I was getting at when I became bold enough to suggest that the arguments that might be used to not specify more secure versions of existing utils within LFS would be ones that could surely be applied to other add-ons such as CrackLib too. -- Regards, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- * Kevin M. Buckley e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * Systems Administrator * * Computer Centre * * Lancaster University Voice: +44 (0) 1524 5 93718 * * LANCASTER. LA1 4YW Fax : +44 (0) 1524 5 25113 * * England. * * * * My PC runs Linux/GNU, you still computing the Bill Gate$' way ? * ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
