Re: No shell => secure?

[Ron DuFresne <dufresne () winternet com>]

        [snip]

> This is not security through obscurity. This is security through
> incompatibility. The point of the idea is to make it necessary for an
> attacker to rewrite an exploit for my system specifically. This is
> something that over 99% of the potential attackers would not do, because
> they don't care about my system. When you have an exploit that works
> against all the RedHat boxes on the Internet, would you bother to
> customize it so that it works against one single server of one single
> random weirdo? It's not worth it.

beleive and redefine well known terms and methodologies as you wish, it
remains none-the-less as I and others have pointed out nothing more then
security via obscurity.  and bears the dangers as some others have pointed
out that you will most likely end up with an unusable system.  On a number
of vender OS', if the sh shell of csh shell, hooked to root user and
startup scripts is not the expected defaults, those OS's fail to function
properly on and tween reboots.

Thanks,

Ron DuFresne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity.  It
eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the
business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation." -- Johnny Hart
        ***testing, only testing, and damn good at it too!***

OK, so you're a Ph.D.  Just don't touch anything.

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html