Re: non-disclosure of infrastructure problem a management issue?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 03:11 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> I fully expect that the reason that they took the system off-line 10
> days ago was a clear indication of their doubt of the sanctity of the
> packages and they didn't put it back online until they felt that they
> felt that they knew the extent of the compromise.

We're were all guessing about that sort of thing, because we had to.
But a wonky system would be just as likely explanation for why a server
was offline, even for a prolonged period.  Yes, I know there's other
risks, etc., but that warning was just bad.

Put the shoe on the other foot.  The infrastructure could have had a
plain old fault and gone off-line, and we could have been speculating
all over the place about security breaches, hacks, and been completely
wrong.

Heck, my ISP's file server has been rather ill over the last few days,
their mail server has always been.  There's no security reasons behind
it that any of us are aware of, just bad management.

-- 
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.25.14-108.fc9.i686

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.  I
read messages from the public lists.



-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux