To:
Ed Sawicki <ed@alcpress.com>
Cc:
Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Jim Reid <Jim.Reid@nominum.com>
Date:
Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:15:50 -0800
In-Reply-To:
Message from Ed Sawicki <ed@alcpress.com> of "21 Feb 2003 08:52:56 PST." <1045846375.1153.209.camel@red>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Why one port?
>>>>> "Ed" == Ed Sawicki <ed@alcpress.com> writes:
Ed> I want my systems to be as secure from attack as possible. To
Ed> me, this means never allowing both functions to be provided by
Ed> the same codebase.
>> Fine. But by the same reasoning, you wouldn't want to provide
>> both functions on the same box.
Ed> I can run both processes in the same computer safely because
Ed> each is running as a different non-root user and each is
Ed> chrooted to a different place in the file system. If I'm
Ed> really paranoid, I can run each in its own Linux virtual
Ed> machine (UML) - all the while using only one IP address.
So what? The stuff is still on just one box. You've still got all your
eggs in one basket. Albeit a basket with fancy padded compartments. All
this software ring-fencing isn't going to help if the CPU catches fire
or someone trips over the power cable and disconnects it, etc, etc.
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.