Re: SELinux
- From: Alan Peery <peery@xxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:57:12 +0000
On 21 Jan 2011, at 23:31, Joe Zeff <joe@xxxxxxx> wrote:
IMO, an unsecured computer on the net is just as much of an attractiveYour analogy is flawed, as pools are not generally able to conduct remote attacks once compromised. That's why unsecured computers are bad.
nuisance as a swimming pool that's not properly fenced in and the owner
is just as liable for any damage.
On a complete side note, perhaps those worried about unfenced pools should consider keeping a closer eye on the things dear to them that might fall in.
Alan
--
users mailing list
users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
- References:
- SELinux
- From: Kostas Sfakiotakis
- Re: SELinux
- From: Tim
- Re: SELinux
- From: Kostas Sfakiotakis
- Re: SELinux
- From: Mike McCarty
- Re: SELinux
- From: Tim
- Re: SELinux
- From: Mike McCarty
- Re: SELinux
- From: Mike McCarty
- Re: SELinux
- From: Tim
- Re: SELinux
- From: Kostas Sfakiotakis
- Re: SELinux
- From: Tim
- Re: SELinux
- From: Mike McCarty
- Re: SELinux
- From: Joe Zeff
- SELinux
- Prev by Date: Re: Asterisk kernel modules?
- Next by Date: File conflicts
- Previous by thread: Re: SELinux
- Next by thread: Re: SELinux
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|