On 14 Feb., 22:57, Huge wrote:
> On 2007-02-13, brian wrote:
>
>
>
> > Who usestelnet?
>
>
>
> Stupid, lazy, incompetent sysadmins who think their Unix security
> department is a pointless nuisance.
>
>
>
> --
> Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those
> who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this
> or that problem will never be solved by science.
> [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org uk]


You all are so funny and clever.
This thread looks like a playschool.
It's true that telnet shouldn't be used but this binary still
available in Solaris and before someone might have the experience
using unix for a couple of years, he probably don't know for what
reasons he shouldn't use it.
This thread is readable by many people, beginners and experienced
admins!
I don't use telnet either - I use ssh instead but I'm sure that we all
will be surprised by the next ssh bug.
Anyway, this is a real good idea: "[email me at huge {at} huge (dot)
org uk]"

On 2007-02-19, ramiro.santosp@googlemail.com wrote:
> On 14 Feb., 22:57, Huge wrote:
>> On 2007-02-13, brian wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Who usestelnet?
>>
>>
>>
>> Stupid, lazy, incompetent sysadmins who think their Unix security
>> department is a pointless nuisance.
>>
>>
>
> You all are so funny and clever.
> This thread looks like a playschool.

Oh, believe me, ramiro, I'm deadly serious. I've spent years banging
my head against a brick wall trying to get sysadmins to switch off
telnet and ftp and application developers to stop doing "chmod -R 666 ...".

> It's true that telnet shouldn't be used but this binary still
> available in Solaris

If I were having any influence whatsosever, it wouldn't even be part of
our standard build.




--
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those
who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this
or that problem will never be solved by science.
[email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org uk]

>>>>> Huge writes:

> Oh, believe me, ramiro, I'm deadly serious. I've spent years
> banging my head against a brick wall trying to get sysadmins to
> switch off telnet and ftp and application developers to stop
> doing "chmod -R 666 ...".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

winDoS/9x-old-schoolers-turned-POSIX-developers? Horrors! On a
previous job of mine, one of those folks one fine day came up with a
"cute" piece of self-modifying code, as it were. Modifying one of the
same application's executable /disk images/ that is. (No, sadly this
is no premature April-Fool's joke.) Due to an approprate incantation
involving chmod (via a GUI, of course!) he had never experienced any
problems with that "solution" in the development environment.

(Ok, it's not like I never pulled that kind of stunt in my high-school
days myself, but I would never have imagined such breathtaking folly
to persist beyond anyone's teenage years...)

As an aside, this teaches the true reason for 666 being considered an
"evil number" (and why it's really octal). No connection with the Book
of Revelations and the gematriah-value of "Neron Qesar", as some folks
would have us believe.

--
Stefan Jankowski
Sysadmin, University of Freiburg, CS Dpt.
s/spambucket//
s/dave\.null/${FORENAME}.${LASTNAME}/

On 2007-02-20, Stefan Jankowski wrote:
>>>>>> Huge writes:
>
>> Oh, believe me, ramiro, I'm deadly serious. I've spent years
>> banging my head against a brick wall trying to get sysadmins to
>> switch off telnet and ftp and application developers to stop
>> doing "chmod -R 666 ...".
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> winDoS/9x-old-schoolers-turned-POSIX-developers?

Yep. That was the same conclusion I came to.



--
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those
who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this
or that problem will never be solved by science.
[email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org uk]