> Short sighted? Absolutely.<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">
><br>
> Common practice? Most certainly. The only practice more common is CYA<br>
> pertaining to who denied the upgrade that led to the failure event.<br>
<br>
</div>The commonality of it is saddening.<br>
<br>
That said, going back to my earlier comment: Just what sort of sense<br>
does it make to enforce the use of sudo, when the rest of the show is<br>
woefully insecure anyway? I mean, it's not like they required the use<br>
of one-time-pads with sudo. Just plain passwords... 8 characters or<br>
less. I think it's hilarious.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
--- Mike<br></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br>I spoke with a Redhat field engineer a few years ago. He was quite a character. He said they had they had a name for networks that had good external security but poor internal. He called them skittles because they were hard on the outside but soft and chewy in the center. Not the way to go if it can be helped eh?<br>
<br>J. D.<br>