Installing a compiler by default

[Derek Broughton]

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?

For my part, I've said I don't see the need, but that's not the same
as "resistance".  I don't see it as a big deal either way.
>> 
>> 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.

Hardly BS.  The presence of _any_ software capable of opening a port to the
net compromises security - a C compiler no more than anything else.  Given
that Ubuntu installs with a huge amount of python, I really think that's
more likely to be a security risk than gcc.
-- 
derek