Re: [Proftpd-user] rstatus response
Michael Green <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.proftpd.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Yes, I’ve uncommented the directive and “ProFTPD" appearing in the output of STAT is no longer an issue. But the fixed structure of the verbiage is still a concern for me, albeit not a big one. And while still at this, I don’t want to make it look bigger than it is, but I tend to disagree with Bob on his assessment "ProFTPd itself is not known to be a security hazard. The operating system you are using may be a security hazard.” Everything (the OS and the apps) is a potential hazard and the more I can do to reduce the risks on every level, the better. The fact that OS may have more bugs and holes than a particular product, doesn’t sound like a proper justification to me to not address concerns in the product even if the concerns are few and small. > On Feb 25, 2017, at 10:31 AM, TJ Saunders <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Well, my users are anonymous. So no, I don’t trust them. >> I agree that this is not a huge security hole, but a way to customize >> that message to disguise the product identity would still be much >> appreciated. > > As mentioned, the ServerName directive can be used to customize that > information in STAT; it also changes the information appearing > elsewhere. So it sounds like actually using, rather than commenting > out, the ServerName directive is what you might try. > > TJ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ ProFTPD Users List <[email protected]> Unsubscribe problems? http://www.proftpd.org/list-unsub.html