[CentOS] what percent of time are there unpatched exploits against default config?

Fri Dec 30 04:07:51 UTC 2011
Cliff Pratt <enkiduonthenet at gmail.com>

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 4:00 AM,  <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote:
> 夜神 岩男 wrote:
>> On 12/29/2011 10:21 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
>>> On Thursday 29 December 2011 13:07:56 Reindl Harald wrote:
>>>> Am 29.12.2011 12:56, schrieb Leonard den Ottolander:
>>>>> On Thu, 2011-12-29 at 12:29 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>>>>> Am 29.12.2011 09:17, schrieb Bennett Haselton:
>>>>>>> Even though the ssh key is more
>>>>>>> random, they're both sufficiently random that it would take at least
>>>>>>> hundreds of years to get in by trial and error.
>>>>>> if you really think your 12-chars password is as secure
>>>>>> as a ssh-key protcected with this password you should
>>>>>> consider to take some education in security
> <snip>
>>> It is very inconvenient for people who need to login to their servers
>>> from random remote locations (ie. people who travel a lot or work in
>>> hardware-controlled environment).
>>> Besides, it is essentially a question of overkill. If password is not
>>> good enough, you could argue that the key is also not good enough ---
>>> two keys (or a larger one) would be more secure. Where do you draw the
>>> line?
> <snip>
>> When traveling I log in to my home server and work servers with my
>> laptop. Its really a *lot* easier than using a bunch of pasword schemes.
> <snip>
> Ah, that brings to mind another issue with only passwords:
> synchronization. I worked as a subcontractor for a *huge* US co a few
> years ago. I've *never* had to write passwords down... but for there, I
> had a page of them! Our group's, the corporate test systems, the corporate
> *production* systems, and *each* had their own, along with their own
> password aging (there was *no* single sign-on), the contracting co's....
We use PasswordSafe to solve that one. There are other similar products.