uptime 4.0 - Eric Anderson - org.freebsd.freebsd-advocacy

16 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-advocacyuptime 4.0

From	Sent On	Attachments
Steve Bertrand	Dec 2, 2003 12:26 pm
Tom Rhodes	Dec 2, 2003 12:30 pm
Eric Anderson	Dec 2, 2003 12:30 pm
Steve Bertrand	Dec 2, 2003 12:33 pm
Eric Anderson	Dec 2, 2003 12:35 pm
Steve Bertrand	Dec 2, 2003 12:41 pm
Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg	Dec 2, 2003 12:53 pm
twig les	Dec 2, 2003 1:47 pm
Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg	Dec 3, 2003 1:48 am
Paul Robinson	Dec 3, 2003 5:10 am
Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg	Dec 3, 2003 5:48 am
Dan Langille	Dec 3, 2003 5:51 am
Eric Anderson	Dec 3, 2003 6:03 am
Mike Hoskins	Dec 3, 2003 4:15 pm
Mike Hoskins	Dec 3, 2003 4:24 pm
Daniela	Dec 4, 2003 10:52 am

Subject:	uptime 4.0
From:	Eric Anderson (ande...@centtech.com)
Date:	Dec 3, 2003 6:03:58 am
List:	org.freebsd.freebsd-advocacy

Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg wrote:

Todays internet is to hostile for systems that isnt frequently and regularly patched and maintained.

Just curious, but, has anyone ever heard of a firewall? I typically don't let my machines be accessed from the internet, and I don't run services on an box that isn't needed. I'm just saying that there are levels of security - any machine touching the net (we all agree here) should have the latest patches and updates, without a doubt. What about a box that is internal, that doesn't allow local user logins, and/or runs a minimal amount of services (say, httpd and sshd)? Of course, those tools should be patched, and why not do the others too - but no reboot is needed for a lot of patches.

I just think that "large uptime = bad admin" is a pretty shallow and close minded way to stereotype people based on how long a machine has been powered on without a reboot. Nobody said "1200 days without a security patch! woohoo!"..

Anyway, this thread should probably move to -chat..

Eric

	Start a set with this search
	Include this search in one of my sets
	Exclude this search from one of my sets