[rescue] IRIX 6.5 on an Indy

[KRM]

Agreed.  I make it a habit to turn *everything* off that's not 
absolutely necessary and do many things manually just so i will not have 
"extra" daemons running.  I do this for both security purposes and 
performance.  I also, don't generally run linux boxen with modular 
kernels, especially if they are internet facing.  And as you said, this 
should apply to any machines that are placed on an untrusted network, no 
matter the OS.  That being said, it's still good to get the warning 
about 5.3.  I know IRIX had a rep (deserving or not) for being insecure 
for a long time yet to be able to lock it down well.

Thanks to all for the advice,
/KRM

ilbar Jr. wrote:

>It goes without saying that any release of Unix should have all unecessary
>services turned off (daemons that start with init scripts, inetd.conf,
>etc).  Countless holes exist in applications/services many people don't
>even need to run.
>
>Running a firewall in front of a box, or filter it's TCP/IP stack on the
>box is always good as well.
>
>This stuff is all true for new as well as old UNIX boxes (or pretty much
>any internet aware OS :-) ).
>
>-- Curt
>
>  
>
>>Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 18:03:12 -0500
>>From: "Jonathan C. Patschke" <jp at celestrion.net>
>>To: The Rescue List <rescue at sunhelp.org>
>>Subject: Re: [rescue] IRIX 6.5 on an Indy
>>X-Message-Flag: Microsoft Outlook is an insecure piece of crap.  Please 
>>    
>>
>consider using a different email client.
>  
>
>>X-All-Your-Base: Are Belong To Us
>>X-GPG-Keyserver: keys.celestrion.net
>>X-GPG-Fingerprint: 143B 8D8C 5AD7 44D4 0143  FE85 288C 370B 67B9 A022
>>
>>On Fri, 16 May 2003, Kevin wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Is anyone here running IRIX 6.5 on an Indy (R5K 180mhz, 128
>>>RAM)?
>>>      
>>>
>>I'm running IRIX 6.5 on an R4600SC/133 Indy with 32MB of memory, and it
>>runs great, so long as I don't run X.  It just doesn't have enough
>>memory to deal with X, but it makes a great programming workstation.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I know 5.3 was more along the lines of what it was designed for,
>>>but i'd like to know if 6.5 has worked acceptably for anyone here.
>>>      
>>>
>>If you decide to go with 5.3, DO NOT expose that machine to the public
>>Internet.  There are many well-known and easily-exploited holes for 5.3.
>>
>>-- 
>>Jonathan Patschke   )  "Kitties are well-designed, efficient, fast,
>>Thorndale, TX      (    aesthetically-pleasing, and respectable.
>>                   )   Perl is not."                --Dave McGuire
>>_______________________________________________
>>rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue
>>    
>>
>_______________________________________________
>rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue