Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
also ALT Linux, but...also ALT Linux, but...Posted Mar 22, 2006 21:25 UTC (Wed) by TwoTimeGrime (guest, #11688)In reply to: also ALT Linux, but... by gvy Parent article: A serious sendmail security hole
Nice troll, but Sendmail has been quite secure for some time now. Maybe 10 years ago it was a mess of security holes but the Sendmail folks have learned their lesson. Sendmail is very secure. Everything has a hole appear everyone once in a while. Postfix is not a SMTP panacea.
(Log in to post comments)
Security in Sendmail vs. Postfix (or qmail or probably exim) Posted Mar 22, 2006 21:36 UTC (Wed) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] Two words: remote root.
Security in Sendmail vs. Postfix (or qmail or probably exim) Posted Mar 24, 2006 17:27 UTC (Fri) by TwoTimeGrime (guest, #11688) [Link] The Linux kernel has had remote root bugs too. Should we all abandon it in favor of something else?
Security in Sendmail vs. Postfix (or qmail or probably exim) Posted Mar 24, 2006 17:43 UTC (Fri) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] Possibly.But when was the last time a remote root hole was discovered in the Linux kernel? How many have there been in "modern times" (say, since 2000)? And can you provide a link to a remote-root Linux kernel hole? I'm aware of local-root and remote-DoS holes, but no remote-root holes.
also ALT Linux, but... Posted Mar 22, 2006 23:12 UTC (Wed) by bastiaan (guest, #5170) [Link] Maybe 10 years ago it was a mess of security holes but the Sendmail folks have learned their lesson. They have learnt their lessons indeed. That's why they ditched the monolithic spaghetti hell of Sendmail 8 and are writing Sendmail X from scratch! Anyone who has taken a look at the horrible crufty source code of Sendmail 8 knows it's not maintainable anymore. It has constructs like macros that contain return statements, functions that go on for pages and pages, all kinds of if-else statements for obsolete configuration file verions, etc.... yuk!
|
|||||||||||||