"der.hans" wrote: > = > Am 26. Feb, 2003 schw=E4tzte George Toft so: > = > > > > And this is one reason hand editing config files is considered a > > computer security risk. My typo adversly affected the availability o= f > > their web site to their customers. Tools that have been certified to= > > produce correct, consistent results are much better. Of course, most= > > Unix admins shudder at the thought of using GUI tools. > > > = > Bah! GUI tools still suck :) > = > In this case, what you needed was a decent format for the config file, = a > good lint tool and some QA. > = > > GUI tools fsck up all the time! If you don't know how things're suppose= d to > work and don't check them, then you don't know if they're working prope= rly. > = > The real solution is having good testing suites and practices. > > = > ciao, > = > der.hans > -- Key word in my statement was "certified tool" - anyone can write a crappy tool that botches things up. I used to think like you do. In my CISSP studies, and working Computer Security for the last year and a half, let me tell you, this is the prevailing thought in the computer Security field. It's covered under the Clark-Wilson Security Model. I have seen the benefits of that model. Which reminds me of a story you will appreciate: a clicker I know (an NT guy) made some edits using vi to /etc/system (Solaris 2.6 boxes). Upon rebooting, things went really bad. The problem was he fat-fingered the parameters on both boxes in different places. First box was up 3 hours later. Second box was up 5 hours later. A certified tool would have prevented this several hour outage to a production system. So would making a backup copy of /etc/system, but that's another story. George -- = Discover . . . | Free Computer Security Information <=B7=B7=B7> Secure | http://www.georgetoft.com/security Networking | = @http://georgetoft.com | Lock your box - keep your affairs private!