Secure remote-access server (Was: 2nd RFD for uk.people.bdsm.personals or uk.adverts.personal
Steve Atkins
uk.net and news.config returned.
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet added, as that's where folks
who grok moderation tend to hang out.
Followup-To: set to n.a.n-a.u)
(Oh ghods, what have I done....)
On Fri, 5 Mar 1999 00:21:51 +0000, Molly
<mock...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <slrn7drniu...@skinner.demon.co.uk>, Aidan Skinner
><ai...@skinner.demon.co.uk> writes
>>One of the things I'm currently hacking on is a news group moderation
>>server which would allow remote access while still keeping it secure (this
>>is done in a variety of ways, if you want more info email me if SRP means
>>nothing to you). It's really basic atm, but would run on anything which is
>>reasonably POSIX compliant...
>>
>Well, it doesn't mean much to me, because I am no expert
>whatsoever. But how can a server which allows remote access
>be secure at the same time? Surely spammers are the greatest
>experts at breaking this kind of thing?
Not at all. Most spammers have difficulty running the point-and-drool
spamware they pay exorbitant prices for. Spammers cracking systems to
avoid moderation? Nah.
A remote access server isn't much less secure than any other server,
as long as you're reasonably careful about backdoors and use decent
protocols for its main jobs.
Any halfway decent cracker can break into it, but that doesn't sound
like the problem here.
Newsgroup moderation isn't a huge security issue, and there are
known approaches to it. (The real pain tends to be getting a moderator
team who'll be there to turn over the traffic fast enough - even with
lots of automation they have to be there fairly regularly...)
>If I am wrong (and I probably am, I'm quite used to it) please
>can you explain further?
Me too.
Cheers,
Steve
--
-- Steve Atkins -- st...@blighty.com