Re: The nature of unstable (was: Danger Will Robinson! Danger!)
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 11:02:20PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 08:42:07AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > this same empirical evidence has also proved that 'stable' is LESS
> > stable and reliable and secure than 'unstable'. the few debian boxes
> > which i know of that have been compromised were cracked BECAUSE they
> > were still running stable and had older versions of various programs
> > which had known security holes.
>
> Uh, which were the packages in question? Did you report it at the
> time?
no need, the holes were already well known - and fixed in unstable.
security is one of the main reasons i run unstable and upgrade
regularly...script kiddies may be stupid, but they are capable of
running an exploit written by someone else - so you have to keep at
least a few months ahead of them.
running unstable is not a 100% guarantee of security (nothing is or can
be)...however, in practice there is only a few days (at most) window
of opportunity between an exploit becoming known and my servers being
secured against it. all i have to do is login with ssh and run apt-get
to upgrade.
craig
--
craig sanders
Reply to: