Kevanf1 wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 07:29:24 -0800, Chris Carlen <crcarle@sandia.gov> wrote:
I beg to differ. Linux will let you do anything you want, secure or insecure. Right way or wrong way. It's your choice. That's the point. That's also the reason that folks with little technical understanding of computer and OS architecture are potentially able to get into even more trouble with Linux. Or just not be able to use it at all.
Well I have a good few years of university level technical support under my belt...but....it was using Micro$oft software.
Change your global umask to 000 and see how secure your system is. Will Linux stop you?
Actually I think I meant 777. The umask is NANDed with octal 777 in order to determine the default permissions used to create files. Look here in the shell help:
help umask
So the typical umask=022 will cause your default permissions to be: rwxrwxrwx NAND with: ----w--w- You get: rwxr-xr-x but files are not by default created with exec perms, so this is actually what you get for dirs. Files are rw-r--r--
No idea. What does it do? Honestly, I don't know. Should I? Is there a site where I can learn more about security on Linux? I would be very interested to know about it as I feel it in everybodies interests for all of us to have a secure system. This then cuts down on junk traffic (virii etc) which then leaves more bandwidth for everybody.
I think there are more important reasons than saving bandwidth to have secure systems.
How many "ordinary" people would have any idea whether their box connected directly to the internet is properly firewalled or not?
Again, I don't. On my XP tin I know. Or I believe I do, can I really trust the online tests? Again, genuine question I am not trying to be funny or anything.
The online tests are useful, but you can't be sure they are correct. Likely they are correct. Good day! -- ____________________________________ Christopher R. Carlen Principal Laser/Optical Technologist Sandia National Laboratories CA USA crcarle@sandia.gov