RE: (Ovid - Security from Obscurity) RE(2): Echo off in IO::Sockets

> I still feel that it would be improper to answer your question

Personally, I think that at least in this case it would be much better to answer with an alternate solution to the problem rather than just not answering it because you feel that the questioner is asking the wrong question. Sometimes I spend ages figuring a particular problem out, only to find out later that what I've spent the last 4 hours scratching my head over is not what I'm looking for at all. That doesn't mean I've wasted the last hour; I'm still learning and every problem I solve is something learnt.

Comment on RE: (Ovid - Security from Obscurity) RE(2): Echo off in IO::Sockets

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
RE (tilly) 2: (Ovid - Security from Obscurity) RE(2): Echo off in IO::Sockets by tilly (Archbishop) on Sep 04, 2000 at 05:56 UTC
Ovid did propose an alternate solution. He said to learn how to lock the box down properly and then don't bother with the fake telnet client. I second that and if the Linux box is Red Hat or a Red Hat derivative I can specifically recommend downloading and trying out Bastille Linux (a series of scripts to walk you through locking your own box down) to both improve your security and teach you what some of the issues are. (Alternately look at OpenBSD.)	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

RE (tilly) 2: (Ovid - Security from Obscurity) RE(2): Echo off in IO::Sockets
by tilly (Archbishop) on Sep 04, 2000 at 05:56 UTC

He said to learn how to lock the box down properly and then don't bother with the fake telnet client.

I second that and if the Linux box is Red Hat or a Red Hat derivative I can specifically recommend downloading and trying out Bastille Linux (a series of scripts to walk you through locking your own box down) to both improve your security and teach you what some of the issues are. (Alternately look at OpenBSD.)

[reply]