Secure Linux install?

[John Heryer]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Bradley Miller wrote:

> Ahem -- but yes, there still is a point to be made here.  These people are
> going up and down the street . . . "oh this house has a Masterlock
> deadbolt, this one has a Kwickset deadbolt, this one a blah blah".  When I
> installed my software I didn't expect have to come along and play "let's
> plug the dike".  If I wanted that I'd install a Windows machine.  In

Ahem -- It should not surprise you that yes, Windows too needs its 
software updated. ;-) 

> reading the OpenBSD site, it does look more secure than Red Hat . . . Red
> Hat looks about like Windows as far as security is concerned.  What you are
> saying is I didn't follow precautions -- yes and no.  I went with Linux
> because I didn't want my server down all the freakin' time, but I didn't
> think I was going to have to reinstall most of the stuff just to lock it up
> tight.  What a joke?   How can you advocate using something that someone
> will have to re-learn just to re-install all the boffed files with security
> holes?????   

There is no such thing as the prefect programmer. Anyone with any 
experience will tell you that it is very difficult to foresee problems 
such as security exploits in their sourcecode. As a competent administrator 
you have to expect this, and you are obligated to update your software. 
That is the way it is. This is something EVERY admin has to deal with, the 
operating system is irrelevant.  

I hate making assumptions, but based on your posts I have come to the 
conclusion that you are a neophyte linux/unix admin. It may be in your 
best interest to ask the friendly people on this list about the proper 
ways to manage your server so you do not get hacked again.  

-- 
John Heryer
jheryer at jayhawks.net