binary only lfs system

Ken Dyke ken_i_m at elegantinnovations.net
Sun Nov 24 10:51:59 PST 2002


On Sun, 2002-11-24 at 02:51, Steve Crosby wrote:
> On the contrary....it is significantly better to be able to attack a 
> system from a 10 (or even 100) Mb network connection, rather than over a 
> <1Mb Internet connection....Portscans, DoS attacks are much more 
> efficient on a local network...

I disagree.  The firewall should be progressively limiting these
connections.  To the point where it stops listening to the compromised
box altogether.

> That said, this is getting a little OT for this thread, and LFS support 
> in general...

This thread was off topic for this list from the beginning.  lfs-chat or
lfs-security would have been much more appropriate.

-- 
I think, therefore, ken_i_m
Chief Gadgeteer,
Elegant Innovations
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-support/attachments/20021124/6925ea83/attachment.sig>


More information about the lfs-support mailing list