On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 01:10:49PM -0400, Chad N. Tindel wrote:
> > Hmmm?
> > The point is something called security.
> There is no such thing as a "proper amount of security that is correct for
> all operating environments".
Whoever said there was? I didn't.
> > This has no logic. Security is fundamental. No security is fundamentally
> > incorrect.
> Well, you could make a box very secure by unplugging all the LAN cables from
> it and putting it in a giant safe deposit box. However, I would say that such
> a machine would be fundamentally incorrect for most operating environments.
Nice strawmen. Too bad it's a logical fallacy.
> Many people run their machines with "+ +" in root's .rhosts file because it
> eases the task of doing administration. They work in a company where the box is
> behind a firewall on some public network and they need there computers to
How about people inside the company? Are they all nice people who live in
> get real work done.... they don't want things like "security" to get in the
> way because nobody is trying to hack those machines.
+----| Roberto Mello - http://www.brasileiro.net/ |------+
+ Computer Science Graduate Student, Utah State University +
+ USU Free Software & GNU/Linux Club - http://fslc.usu.edu/ +
Backup not found: (Q)uem mandou usar o Stacker?
In response to
pgsql-docs by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-08-03 17:03:44|
|Subject: Re: Mysql -> Postgresql pitfalls |
|Previous:||From: Chad N. Tindel||Date: 2003-08-02 17:10:49|
|Subject: Re: Mysql -> Postgresql pitfalls|