Is it enabled now?
-
-
-
Yep, they finally gave in, I guess they decided making users put up with fifty local root exploits wasn't worth top-notch UUCP support

- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
"... you can read more about it on fidonet or at my gopher site." hahahaha!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I am not surprised Debian chose stability over security. (They should fix their priorities though).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You mean UUCP = Unix to Unix Copy Protocol? I haven't used that since ARPAnet. Umm ... 1986 ...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
UUCP still has a *lot* of use over expensive and slow satellite (Iridium) and HF radio links, but that's still no reason to have crappy defaults
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Don’t trust Debbie anymore. She’s trouble.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's quite remarkable how somebody thought that disabling a security mechanism was the proper way to deal with an issue that clearly should have been fixed in the UUCP implementation. Things were quite different back in 1999 of course, that nobody ever revisited this however...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You were referring to a bugreport from 1999 as evidence in 2013? Sorry, but that just does not sound right to me.
-
He tracked down the original reason of why Debian was disabling this security mechanism. It might be that by 2013 they had other reasons to do it, but it's more likely that once the problem was "fixed" nobody took another look at the issue.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.