🚀 go-pugleaf

ggm@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (George Michaelson) writes:

>dank@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov (Dan Kegel) writes:
>> But what about 'Horton'?  It fingers all the participating machines in
>> one's own domain hourly to update an e-mail address database,

>...I'd have preferred 'horton' to [use a different TCP/IP port than finger]
>That way I know that this traffic is constrained to just that context.

>> It would be impractical to make horton use something other than finger,
>> [because Horton by design requires no active cooperation from the sysops.]

>This is a dual-edged sword. Deploying something as sensitive as an information
>gatherer, without requiring active consent, and to close off access requiring
>local modification.... not social behaviour methinks.

OK, I'd like the next version of Horton to be socially correct ;-)
Would it suffice to send a mail message to postmaster@foo, with an offer to 
exclude foo from polling, before beginning to gather information from foo?

>On the whole, I think (mis)use of finger is doing more good than bad. I'd have
>preferred to see the various threads of functionality unravelled a bit more. 

I doubt that just moving Horton's polling activity to another well-known-
port would add any real security; hackers could just as well use that port. 
- Dan Kegel (dank@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov)