Overall, I'm not trying to make this, my "more serious blog" a dumping-ground for rants. So, please forgive me this rant and please feel free to skip this post....
I've been using UNIX and similar systems for a long time, now. So, I'm kind of set in my ways in the things I do on systems and the tools I expect to be there. When someone capriciously removes a useful tool, I get a touch upset.
`finger` is one of those useful tools. Sadly, because people have, in the mists of time` misconfigured finger, security folks now like to either simply disable it or remove it altogether. Fine. Whatever: I appreciate that there might be security concerns. However, if you're going to remove a given command, at least make sure you're accomplishing something useful for the penalty you make system users pay in frustration and lost time. If you decide to remove the finger command, then you should probably also make it so I can't get the same, damned information via:
• `id`
• `who`
• `whoami`
• `last`
• `getent passwd <USERID>`
• (etc.)
If I can run all of those commands, I've still got all the ability to get the data you're trying to hide by removing `finger`. So, what have you accomplished other than to piss me off and make it so I have to get data via other avenues? Seriously: "WTF"?
Why the hell is it that, when someone reads a "security best practice", they go ahead and blindly implement something without bothering to ask the next, logical questions: "does doing this, by itself, achieve my security goal," "is the potential negative impact on system users more than balanced-out by increased system security", "is there a better way to do this and achieve my security goals" and "what goal am I actually acheiving by taking this measure." If you don't ask these questions (and have good, strong answers to each), you probably shouldn't be following these "best practices."
