Installing a compiler by default

[Anders Karlsson]

On Sun, 2006-06-11 at 13:13 -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 22:16 -0400, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 07:04 +1000, Peter Garrett wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > I don't understand the resistance to installing gcc and friends. Is there
> > > some kind of religious controversy involved of which I'm unaware? 
> > > 
> > 
> > If you consider "security best practices" to be "religion", then I guess
> > yes, your lack of knowledge of them may be the source of your confusion.
> > 
> > I recommend reading "Practical Unix and Internet Security", available
> > from O'Reilly and Associates, as a good starting point.
> 
> I've talked to some very well known security experts about this and they
> agree that it's BS.  The presense of a C compiler does not compromise
> system security.

You misunderstand. A C compiler in itself does not compromise security,
and if you phrased the question like that, I'd tell you it was BS as
well. On a system that run services it is bad security practise to
install a compiler, for reasons already explained, and the book Shawn
points you at will reaffirm this.

Kind Regards,

-- 
Anders Karlsson <trudheim at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3838 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/sounder/attachments/20060612/37351141/smime-0001.bin