Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!bellcore!faline!ulysses!sfmag!sfsup!shap
From: shap@sfsup.UUCP (J.S.Shapiro)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: Irresponsibility (Was: Security problem on UNIX PC's)
Message-ID: <2122@sfsup.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Sep-87 18:28:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: sfsup.2122
Posted: Mon Sep 28 18:28:58 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 5-Oct-87 01:45:16 EDT
References: <54@quincy.UUCP> <149@manta.UUCP> <55@quincy.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T-IS, Summit N.J. USA
Lines: 24
Summary: Resolution for Hackers stuff

In article <55@quincy.UUCP>, lenny@quincy.UUCP (Lenny Tropiano) writes:
> In article <149@manta.UUCP>, brant@manta.UUCP (Brant Cheikes) writes:
> > As a result, it's irresponsible
> > to post articles giving exact directions for violating system security. 
> 
> Brant, I was *NOT* giving the people the "DIRECTIONS" for HACKING a machine,
> ...

This topic was discussed to death in unix-wizards many years ago.
The resolution for that environment was that they created a mailing
list of system administrators rather than post things to the net.

In the UNIX PC domain this doesn't apply, as every owner is, like it
or not, an administrator. As such, it makes sense to post things here.
If in fact people object enough to needing to work so hard to keep
their Personal Computers safe, I hope that they will all object
*loudly* to their sales reps/vendors, with *examples* so that we can
get the right high level people here at AT&T to agree that UNIX
administration is worth throwing more money at.

Sigh.

Jon Shapiro
AT&T Information Systems