> Now we have two people making this statement but it completely
> disregards the reality of the situation. If you look at
> <http://www.woodstone.nu/ftpstats/ftp_all.htm> you will see that wu-ftpd
> completely dominates the ftp market which is a good reason that there
> have been more exploits out there for that daemon server and less for
> statistically insignificant daemons.
>
> More importantly, there is a very robust method for keeping these things
> up to date on a redhat system - it's called up2date and it will
> automatically download and update installed daemons when system
> advisories require updating. Say I install a proftpd or pure-ftpd on a
> system but the security advisories that I get from redhat will never
> mention them because they don't include them, and it never gets
> updated...how smart is that? I can tell you from my very limited
> perspective, it's much smarter for me to use wu-ftpd as part of the
> redhat package and it gets updated frequently by my running "up2date -u"
> which will update all the packages installed on my system (or profile)
> as opposed to having to consider the security implications of a
> 'foreign' ftp server that redhat doesn't support.
>
> I wonder if all those preaching switching the
> standard/supported/maintained ftp daemon for one that will require some
> effort in updating, linking libraries, security implications etc... why
> they are still using bind, openssh and other daemons that likewise have
> a storied history of security advisories?
>
> Lastly, if security through obscurity (or statistically insignificant
> marketshare - hence statistically insignificant exploit efforts) is
> desired, may I recommend Macintosh OS 9?
>
> Craig

You might consider running apt-get on a regular basis to insure you have the 
lastest of all yer software. Why wait for security advisories?