On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 17:36, Matthew Moen wrote:
> This rant isn't directed at you in particular Matt. I'm airing this one
> as I've heard a lot about sendmail on this list, but have been biting my
> tongue. Besides, the SLUG list has really been lacking in the
> rant-traffic department recently. ;-)
>
Seems like I opened a veritable can of worms. In no way did I feel you
were ranting at me in particular -- I just piped in because I believe
(rightly or wrongly) sendmail can be run as securely as the next app. I
am fully aware that there are excellent replacements for sendmail which
are both as scalable and by design more secure. "Out of the box",
sendmail seems awfully lofty and IS inherently insecure.
The only way to secure anybox[tm] against potential hacking is to never
expose it to the outside world -- and for that matter, don't trust your
siblings, spouse, dog, etc. to touch the box either. Obviously, in order
to communicate to the outside world, we are forced to essentially take
our chances in an inhospitable environment. I think it is skewed to
believe any program is free from hacking or inherent flaws. Sendmail has
evolved considerably since inception, and its ubiquitous nature has in
the past made it the poster child for mail server insecurity.
-- Matt Miller Systems Administrator MP TotalCare gpg public key id: 08BC7B06
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:53:57 EDT