1 |
cfengine looks like a good solution. |
2 |
|
3 |
Part of the problem is that this was not done publicly. Some people did not |
4 |
discover the change until tcpdump suddenly stopped working. (No flames |
5 |
about not reading the changelogs, please.) |
6 |
|
7 |
michael |
8 |
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:03:40 -0800 |
9 |
Jesse <ras1@××××××××××××.com> wrote: |
10 |
|
11 |
> On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 12:47, David Olsen wrote: |
12 |
> > On 2003-12-16 at 15:25:09, James Dennis <james@×××××××××××××.com> wrote: |
13 |
> > > This whole discussion is getting ridiculous. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> I agree here... |
16 |
> |
17 |
> > The point was traceroute is _not_ installed by default. An admin |
18 |
> > desiring to install this software, in my case, on several hundred |
19 |
> > servers, I don't want to have to chmod traceroute on all those boxes, |
20 |
> > everytime there's an update to traceoute because of what could be deemed |
21 |
> > a poor choice for security. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Use cfengine as pointed out earlier, or write a script to do this... |
24 |
> This is not really a big issue. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> > If enough of the community wants it back the way it was, I assume Gentoo |
27 |
> > developers will respond as such. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> Seems like this is not the case here. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> --ras |
32 |
> |
33 |
> |
34 |
> |
35 |
> |
36 |
> -- |
37 |
> gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |
38 |
|
39 |
|
40 |
-- |
41 |
---- ---- ---- |
42 |
Michael Reilly michaelr@×××××.com |
43 |
Cisco Systems, Santa Cruz, CA |
44 |
|
45 |
-- |
46 |
gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |