From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LZ9t8-0002Nv-O4 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:16:22 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 74FF3E049D; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:16:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50A8AE049D for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:16:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF0A066E86 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:16:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.899 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.700, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C3XJ6CAcfWLh for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:16:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91BEE670CA for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:16:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1LZ9sl-0007u3-W7 for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:16:00 +0000 Received: from www.buffer.net ([24.73.161.102]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:15:59 +0000 Received: from wireless by www.buffer.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:15:59 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: james Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo as a production server - insecure? Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:15:50 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <6b16fb4c0902160405t6a2fcd3alb069d8e1a869e509@mail.gmail.com> <200902161326.07025.shrdlu@unlimitedmail.org> <200902161833.38055.dirk.heinrichs@online.de> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-Loom-IP: 24.73.161.102 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20090210 SeaMonkey/1.1.14) Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 1cd6e55c-8218-4dc4-ad41-088f9dfc9d72 X-Archives-Hash: dcdedf4480a95b5540703def0eaeb128 Dirk Heinrichs online.de> writes: > would you please be so kind and avoid hijacking other threads next time. Um, you must not have read the response. I did specifically address and provide remedy if indeed having gcc installed on a machine is a security threat. Sure I expounded on the whole concept of security, because one of the most important aspect of any or all security is a measure of reasonableness and sufficiency. There are many instances, imho, that overkill for security is applied and often does not work, such as removing gcc from a system. A good hacker (security interloper) can patch a system without ever compiling anything on that system.... Your opinion that I hijacked a thread is, well, your opinion, at best. Ignore what you do not like, or give a more singularly focused response, if you deem that necessary, but avoid pissing into a fan and telling the rest of us how cool and relevant you are. After all, you did not even respond with any relevance to what the poster was look for, did you ? (your just another pompous a.....).... hth, James