Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Previously Vineet Kumar wrote:
>
> > So are "please" and "thank you," but it's generally considered polite.
>
> Also using Mail-Followup-To is standard and expected behaviour on
> debian lists.
That's a reasonable requirement only when Debian add
On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 12:38:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Also using Mail-Followup-To is standard and expected behaviour on
> > debian lists.
>
> That's a reasonable requirement only when Debian adds support for
> Mail-Followup-To in all the MUA's that it supports.
Do we *support*
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Previously Vineet Kumar wrote:
>
> > So are "please" and "thank you," but it's generally considered polite.
>
> Also using Mail-Followup-To is standard and expected behaviour on
> debian lists.
That's a reasonable requirement only when Debian adds
* Mathias Gygax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001.11.18 17:59:29+0100]:
> > thanks, you just made me laugh!
> you set lamer detector to orange.
alright, so my first step is to scale back and *not* flame. i am sorry
for posting my sarcastic comment.
i shall now try to sum up my points. we have been talkin
* Mathias Gygax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001.11.18 17:58:46+0100]:
> > excellent. you know what i did: i just remove the root:0:... line from
> > /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow. now i can't be root. that must be perfect
> > security. yeah!
>
> before you shout, think twice. this is READ-only on my syste
* Mathias Gygax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001.11.18 17:59:29+0100]:
> > thanks, you just made me laugh!
> you set lamer detector to orange.
alright, so my first step is to scale back and *not* flame. i am sorry
for posting my sarcastic comment.
i shall now try to sum up my points. we have been talki
* Mathias Gygax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001.11.18 17:58:46+0100]:
> > excellent. you know what i did: i just remove the root:0:... line from
> > /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow. now i can't be root. that must be perfect
> > security. yeah!
>
> before you shout, think twice. this is READ-only on my syst
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 07:41:35PM +, sober wrote:
> if it's to unsecure u have 2 ways:
> - choose another emailprogramm where u don't know the risk that root can read
> the mails
> - write them direct on ur smtp server ...
>
> btw: root of ur mailserver can read ur incoming mails too !
>
>
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 07:41:35PM +, sober wrote:
> if it's to unsecure u have 2 ways:
> - choose another emailprogramm where u don't know the risk that root can read the
>mails
> - write them direct on ur smtp server ...
>
> btw: root of ur mailserver can read ur incoming mails too !
>
>
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 22:25:36 -0600
Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 12:01:32PM -0800, J C Lawrence wrote:
>> Mail-Followup-To is a non-standard, un-RFC documented, generally
>> unsupported header.
> The guy is using mutt. mutt supports M-F-T. You figure it out.
Which ignores
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 08:25:36PM -0800, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 12:01:32PM -0800, J C Lawrence wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:57:05 -0600
> > Nathan E Norman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> > >> But his is hugely off topic, and I
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 22:25:36 -0600
Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 12:01:32PM -0800, J C Lawrence wrote:
>> Mail-Followup-To is a non-standard, un-RFC documented, generally
>> unsupported header.
> The guy is using mutt. mutt supports M-F-T. You figure it out.
Which ignore
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 12:01:32PM -0800, J C Lawrence wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:57:05 -0600
> Nathan E Norman wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> >> But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this
> >> road.
>
> > Could you at least honor my
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 08:25:36PM -0800, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 12:01:32PM -0800, J C Lawrence wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:57:05 -0600
> > Nathan E Norman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> > >> But his is hugely off topic, and
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 12:01:32PM -0800, J C Lawrence wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:57:05 -0600
> Nathan E Norman wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> >> But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this
> >> road.
>
> > Could you at least honor m
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 03:40:42PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> If you use a header that is not universally supported, or even
> supported by a fairly popular mail client (Mutt in this case) or
> frequently used (if not popular) MTA (Exchange in this case), then
> you can't really complain
Howland, Curtis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> There is also this How-To:
>
> http://www.linux.org/docs/ldp/howto/Loopback-Encrypted-Filesystem-HOWTO.
> html
>
thats a very good one. If you actually get the stuff at
cryptoapi.sourceforce.net you can do other filesystems other than ext2
(easily). A
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 03:40:42PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> If you use a header that is not universally supported, or even
> supported by a fairly popular mail client (Mutt in this case) or
> frequently used (if not popular) MTA (Exchange in this case), then
> you can't really complai
Howland, Curtis [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>
> There is also this How-To:
>
> http://www.linux.org/docs/ldp/howto/Loopback-Encrypted-Filesystem-HOWTO.
> html
>
thats a very good one. If you actually get the stuff at
cryptoapi.sourceforce.net you can do other filesystems other than ext2
(easily)
e" apply.
Thoughts?
Curt-
-Original Message-
From: Petro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 04:51
To: Florian Bantner
Cc: debian-security@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Mutt & tmp files -- Root is not my Enemy
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 02:47:56PM +0100, Fl
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 01:00:58PM -0800, Vineet Kumar wrote:
> * J C Lawrence ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [011120 12:04]:
> > On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:57:05 -0600
> > Nathan E Norman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> > >> But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futh
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 13:00:58 -0800
Vineet Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * J C Lawrence ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [011120 12:04]:
>> Mail-Followup-To is a non-standard, un-RFC documented, generally
>> unsupported header.
> So are "please" and "thank you," but it's generally considered
> polite.
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, J C Lawrence wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:57:05 -0600
>Nathan E Norman wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
>>> But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this
>>> road.
>
>> Could you at least honor my Mail-Followup-To: header?
>
e" apply.
Thoughts?
Curt-
-Original Message-
From: Petro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 04:51
To: Florian Bantner
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mutt & tmp files -- Root is not my Enemy
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 02:47:56PM +0100, Florian Bantner
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 01:00:58PM -0800, Vineet Kumar wrote:
> * J C Lawrence ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [011120 12:04]:
> > On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:57:05 -0600
> > Nathan E Norman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> > >> But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no fut
Previously Vineet Kumar wrote:
> So are "please" and "thank you," but it's generally considered polite.
Also using Mail-Followup-To is standard and expected behaviour on
debian lists.
Wichert.
--
_
/[EMAIL PROTECTED] T
* J C Lawrence ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [011120 12:04]:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:57:05 -0600
> Nathan E Norman wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> >> But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this
> >> road.
>
> > Could you at least honor my Mail-Follo
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 13:00:58 -0800
Vineet Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * J C Lawrence ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [011120 12:04]:
>> Mail-Followup-To is a non-standard, un-RFC documented, generally
>> unsupported header.
> So are "please" and "thank you," but it's generally considered
> polite.
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, J C Lawrence wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:57:05 -0600
>Nathan E Norman wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
>>> But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this
>>> road.
>
>> Could you at least honor my Mail-Followup-To: header?
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:57:05 -0600
Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
>> But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this
>> road.
> Could you at least honor my Mail-Followup-To: header?
Mail-Followup-To is a non-standard, un-RFC documen
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 03:34:54PM +0100, Rolf Kutz wrote:
> Alexander Clouter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > I am the root guy of my own laptop and I can trust myself :) However a lot
> > of countries (uk/us and probably others, lots in the eu I would imagine)
> > have
> > encryption laws, no
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 02:47:56PM +0100, Florian Bantner wrote:
> On Die, 20 Nov 2001, Rolf Kutz wrote:
> > Florian Bantner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > A fact about which I'm concerned
> > > even more than about a hack from outside via the internet etc. is
> > > real physical access to the bo
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 12:13:05PM +0100, Rolf Kutz wrote:
> Florian Bantner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > A fact about which I'm concerned
> > even more than about a hack from outside via the internet etc. is
> > real physical access to the box. Something hackers normaly don't pay
> > enough a
Previously Vineet Kumar wrote:
> So are "please" and "thank you," but it's generally considered polite.
Also using Mail-Followup-To is standard and expected behaviour on
debian lists.
Wichert.
--
_
[EMAIL PROTECTED] T
* J C Lawrence ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [011120 12:04]:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:57:05 -0600
> Nathan E Norman wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> >> But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this
> >> road.
>
> > Could you at least honor my Mail-Foll
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:57:05 -0600
Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
>> But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this
>> road.
> Could you at least honor my Mail-Followup-To: header?
Mail-Followup-To is a non-standard, un-RFC docume
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 03:34:54PM +0100, Rolf Kutz wrote:
> Alexander Clouter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > I am the root guy of my own laptop and I can trust myself :) However a lot
> > of countries (uk/us and probably others, lots in the eu I would imagine) have
> > encryption laws, not pr
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 02:47:56PM +0100, Florian Bantner wrote:
> On Die, 20 Nov 2001, Rolf Kutz wrote:
> > Florian Bantner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > A fact about which I'm concerned
> > > even more than about a hack from outside via the internet etc. is
> > > real physical access to the b
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 12:13:05PM +0100, Rolf Kutz wrote:
> Florian Bantner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > A fact about which I'm concerned
> > even more than about a hack from outside via the internet etc. is
> > real physical access to the box. Something hackers normaly don't pay
> > enough
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 03:34:54PM +0100, Rolf Kutz wrote:
> What, if I someone gets an email encrypted with a
> bogus key claiming to, but not belonging to the
> recipient? What if I lost the key? Silly law.
>
Actually, an UK group did send a Government oficial an encrypted incriminating
message
Rolf Kutz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Alexander Clouter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > I am the root guy of my own laptop and I can trust myself :) However a lot
> > of countries (uk/us and probably others, lots in the eu I would imagine)
> > have
> > encryption laws, not preventing it but pe
Alexander Clouter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I am the root guy of my own laptop and I can trust myself :) However a lot
> of countries (uk/us and probably others, lots in the eu I would imagine) have
> encryption laws, not preventing it but permiting them to throw you in jail
> unless you hand
Florian Bantner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Die, 20 Nov 2001, Rolf Kutz wrote:
>
> > Use TMPFS. Encrypt your disk or do everything in
> > RAM (maybe set up a diskless system booting from
> > cd. See the bootcd-package). They might still be
> > bugging your hardware.
>
> I don't know tmpfs. Wha
Florian Bantner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I don't know tmpfs. What I'm currently thinging about is:
> * Create for every user a directory under his home.
> * Use some kind of ram-disk device.
> * Perhaps (just to be sure) encrypt it. Perhaps that's where I need
> some kind of encrypting files
On Die, 20 Nov 2001, Rolf Kutz wrote:
> Florian Bantner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > A fact about which I'm concerned
> > even more than about a hack from outside via the internet etc. is
> > real physical access to the box. Something hackers normaly don't pay
> > enough attention is that jus
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 03:34:54PM +0100, Rolf Kutz wrote:
> What, if I someone gets an email encrypted with a
> bogus key claiming to, but not belonging to the
> recipient? What if I lost the key? Silly law.
>
Actually, an UK group did send a Government oficial an encrypted incriminating message
Rolf Kutz [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>
> Alexander Clouter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > I am the root guy of my own laptop and I can trust myself :) However a lot
> > of countries (uk/us and probably others, lots in the eu I would imagine) have
> > encryption laws, not preventing it but perm
Alexander Clouter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I am the root guy of my own laptop and I can trust myself :) However a lot
> of countries (uk/us and probably others, lots in the eu I would imagine) have
> encryption laws, not preventing it but permiting them to throw you in jail
> unless you hand
Florian Bantner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Die, 20 Nov 2001, Rolf Kutz wrote:
>
> > Use TMPFS. Encrypt your disk or do everything in
> > RAM (maybe set up a diskless system booting from
> > cd. See the bootcd-package). They might still be
> > bugging your hardware.
>
> I don't know tmpfs. Wh
Florian Bantner [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>
> I don't know tmpfs. What I'm currently thinging about is:
> * Create for every user a directory under his home.
> * Use some kind of ram-disk device.
> * Perhaps (just to be sure) encrypt it. Perhaps that's where I need
> some kind of encrypting fi
On Die, 20 Nov 2001, Rolf Kutz wrote:
> Florian Bantner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > A fact about which I'm concerned
> > even more than about a hack from outside via the internet etc. is
> > real physical access to the box. Something hackers normaly don't pay
> > enough attention is that ju
Florian Bantner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> A fact about which I'm concerned
> even more than about a hack from outside via the internet etc. is
> real physical access to the box. Something hackers normaly don't pay
> enough attention is that just somebody steps - let's say 6 o'clock
> in the mor
Florian Bantner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> A fact about which I'm concerned
> even more than about a hack from outside via the internet etc. is
> real physical access to the box. Something hackers normaly don't pay
> enough attention is that just somebody steps - let's say 6 o'clock
> in the mo
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 07:57:05PM -0800, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> > But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this road.
>
> Could you at least honor my Mail-Followup-To: header?
I would have if I saw it.
Mutt d
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 07:57:05PM -0800, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> > But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this road.
>
> Could you at least honor my Mail-Followup-To: header?
I would have if I saw it.
Mutt
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this road.
Could you at least honor my Mail-Followup-To: header?
Thanks,
--
Nathan Norman - Staff Engineer | A good plan today is better
Micromuse Ltd. | than a p
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this road.
Could you at least honor my Mail-Followup-To: header?
Thanks,
--
Nathan Norman - Staff Engineer | A good plan today is better
Micromuse Ltd. | than a
>From: John Galt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>delete. You're missing a large point here: root doesn't have to have
RWX
>access on everything to be able to do their job, -WX may do the trick.
So, root does not need total file access in order to do some subset of
functions which you, or the NSA, co
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 02:14:54PM -0800, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 01:47:40PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> > > enviroments and applications to figure out what it takes to make a
> > > system really consistent and usable for you. Even if you pick some
> > > things that aren't qui
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 04:14:54PM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> Install Netscape 4.x, 6.x, Mozilla, and IE on a windows box.
>
> Good luck expecting the same key strokes to do the same thing in each
> application.
Just tried this (except for Netscape 6.x) -- and at least Ctrl-F,
Ctrl-A, Ctrl-
>From: John Galt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>delete. You're missing a large point here: root doesn't have to have
RWX
>access on everything to be able to do their job, -WX may do the trick.
So, root does not need total file access in order to do some subset of
functions which you, or the NSA, c
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 01:47:40PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> > enviroments and applications to figure out what it takes to make a
> > system really consistent and usable for you. Even if you pick some
> > things that aren't quite finished as part of your enviroment, if they
> > are part of an activ
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 12:46:21PM -0800, James Hamilton wrote:
> My Gnome/X/Debian GNU/Linux Desktop is much "slicker" than
> anything I have ever been able to do with Windows. The Gnome
> apps have a fairly consistent interface as well. There is a steeper and
> longer learning curve to learn h
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 02:14:54PM -0800, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 01:47:40PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> > > enviroments and applications to figure out what it takes to make a
> > > system really consistent and usable for you. Even if you pick some
> > > things that aren't qu
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 04:14:54PM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> Install Netscape 4.x, 6.x, Mozilla, and IE on a windows box.
>
> Good luck expecting the same key strokes to do the same thing in each
> application.
Just tried this (except for Netscape 6.x) -- and at least Ctrl-F,
Ctrl-A, Ctrl
My Gnome/X/Debian GNU/Linux Desktop is much "slicker" than
anything I have ever been able to do with Windows. The Gnome
apps have a fairly consistent interface as well. There is a steeper and
longer learning curve to learn how to really use X and Unix, but I would
say that is an asset for member
> "Petro" == Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I am just dying to find out why this is so. I find the unices I
>> work with to be much more usable than any incarnation of
>> Windows. So what exactly do you put into 'usability'?
Petro> Consistency of UI, availibility and integration of
Hi,
> >Root Is God. This is a multi-user, full-time, "networked" device. Root
> >bears the responsibility of everything that happens to that machine.
> >They are answerable to everyone, not just one user.
>
> No, root had best not be god. NSA Rainbow book pretty much states that
> for C systems t
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 12:30:34AM -0800, Martin Christensen wrote:
> > "Petro" == Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Petro> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:24:05AM +0900, Howland, Curtis
> Petro> wrote:
> >> ps: From a personal perspective, I think Linux is about where
> >> Windows 3.0 was. This
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 01:47:40PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> > enviroments and applications to figure out what it takes to make a
> > system really consistent and usable for you. Even if you pick some
> > things that aren't quite finished as part of your enviroment, if they
> > are part of an acti
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 12:46:21PM -0800, James Hamilton wrote:
> My Gnome/X/Debian GNU/Linux Desktop is much "slicker" than
> anything I have ever been able to do with Windows. The Gnome
> apps have a fairly consistent interface as well. There is a steeper and
> longer learning curve to learn
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Howland, Curtis wrote:
>To be blunt, I don't think one can entirely protect ones self from root,
>nor do I believe it's an "All Good" idea.
>
>Root Is God. This is a multi-user, full-time, "networked" device. Root
>bears the responsibility of everything that happens to that ma
My Gnome/X/Debian GNU/Linux Desktop is much "slicker" than
anything I have ever been able to do with Windows. The Gnome
apps have a fairly consistent interface as well. There is a steeper and
longer learning curve to learn how to really use X and Unix, but I would
say that is an asset for membe
> "Petro" == Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I am just dying to find out why this is so. I find the unices I
>> work with to be much more usable than any incarnation of
>> Windows. So what exactly do you put into 'usability'?
Petro> Consistency of UI, availibility and integration of
Hi,
> >Root Is God. This is a multi-user, full-time, "networked" device. Root
> >bears the responsibility of everything that happens to that machine.
> >They are answerable to everyone, not just one user.
>
> No, root had best not be god. NSA Rainbow book pretty much states that
> for C systems
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 12:30:34AM -0800, Martin Christensen wrote:
> > "Petro" == Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Petro> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:24:05AM +0900, Howland, Curtis
> Petro> wrote:
> >> ps: From a personal perspective, I think Linux is about where
> >> Windows 3.0 was. This
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 09:30:34AM +0100, Martin Christensen typed out the
following...
> > "Petro" == Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Petro> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:24:05AM +0900, Howland, Curtis
> Petro> wrote:
> >> ps: From a personal perspective, I think Linux is about where
> >> W
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Howland, Curtis wrote:
>To be blunt, I don't think one can entirely protect ones self from root,
>nor do I believe it's an "All Good" idea.
>
>Root Is God. This is a multi-user, full-time, "networked" device. Root
>bears the responsibility of everything that happens to that m
> "Petro" == Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Petro> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:24:05AM +0900, Howland, Curtis
Petro> wrote:
>> ps: From a personal perspective, I think Linux is about where
>> Windows 3.0 was. This is not a troll, just a usability thing.
Petro> No, it's about where win3.1
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 09:30:34AM +0100, Martin Christensen typed out the following...
> > "Petro" == Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Petro> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:24:05AM +0900, Howland, Curtis
> Petro> wrote:
> >> ps: From a personal perspective, I think Linux is about where
> >> W
> "Petro" == Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Petro> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:24:05AM +0900, Howland, Curtis
Petro> wrote:
>> ps: From a personal perspective, I think Linux is about where
>> Windows 3.0 was. This is not a troll, just a usability thing.
Petro> No, it's about where win3.
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:24:05AM +0900, Howland, Curtis wrote:
> ps: From a personal perspective, I think Linux is about where Windows
> 3.0 was. This is not a troll, just a usability thing.
No, it's about where win3.11 was in a lot of ways. Modulo the
stability &&etc.
--
Share and En
To be blunt, I don't think one can entirely protect ones self from root,
nor do I believe it's an "All Good" idea.
Root Is God. This is a multi-user, full-time, "networked" device. Root
bears the responsibility of everything that happens to that machine.
They are answerable to everyone, not just o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Friday 16 November 2001 11:39, Mathias Gygax wrote:
> > There is no way, nor any reason why, to setup a system in such a way
> > that the maintainer of the system cannot maintain it.
>
> maintainer is someone else. root is there for serving the daemons.
> admi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Friday 16 November 2001 11:21, Oyvind A. Holm wrote:
> On 2001-11-15 19:11 Florian Bantner wrote:
> Another thing is... You're a bit concerned that root can read your
> mail. A good advice is to never - NEVER place your private (secret) key
> on another machin
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:24:05AM +0900, Howland, Curtis wrote:
> ps: From a personal perspective, I think Linux is about where Windows
> 3.0 was. This is not a troll, just a usability thing.
No, it's about where win3.11 was in a lot of ways. Modulo the
stability &&etc.
--
Share and E
To be blunt, I don't think one can entirely protect ones self from root,
nor do I believe it's an "All Good" idea.
Root Is God. This is a multi-user, full-time, "networked" device. Root
bears the responsibility of everything that happens to that machine.
They are answerable to everyone, not just
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Friday 16 November 2001 11:39, Mathias Gygax wrote:
> > There is no way, nor any reason why, to setup a system in such a way
> > that the maintainer of the system cannot maintain it.
>
> maintainer is someone else. root is there for serving the daemons.
> adm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Friday 16 November 2001 11:21, Oyvind A. Holm wrote:
> On 2001-11-15 19:11 Florian Bantner wrote:
> Another thing is... You're a bit concerned that root can read your
> mail. A good advice is to never - NEVER place your private (secret) key
> on another machi
On Son, Nov 18, 2001 at 05:06:21 +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> thanks, you just made me laugh!
you set lamer detector to orange.
On Son, Nov 18, 2001 at 05:08:14 +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> excellent. you know what i did: i just remove the root:0:... line from
> /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow. now i can't be root. that must be perfect
> security. yeah!
before you shout, think twice. this is READ-only on my system. you don
* Wade Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001.11.15 22:17:39-0800]:
> This is the sort of absolutist nonsense that gives security experts a
> bad name. After all, anyone armed with a chainsaw can cut through a
> solid oak door in a matter of hours, so why bother installing a deadbolt
> on your door?
* Mathias Gygax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001.11.16 14:36:30+0100]:
> > > > Root is God. Anything you do on the system is potentially visible to
> > > > root.
>
> this is, with the right patches applied, not true.
^^
> can very fine tune the setup. fo
* Mathias Gygax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001.11.16 15:06:54+0100]:
> > well, i thought this is the definition of root.
>
> no. with LIDS you can protect files and syscalls even from root. in my
> setup, root cannot even write to his own home directory.
... which root can change at convenience. this
On Son, Nov 18, 2001 at 05:06:21 +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> thanks, you just made me laugh!
you set lamer detector to orange.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Son, Nov 18, 2001 at 05:08:14 +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> excellent. you know what i did: i just remove the root:0:... line from
> /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow. now i can't be root. that must be perfect
> security. yeah!
before you shout, think twice. this is READ-only on my system. you do
* Wade Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001.11.15 22:17:39-0800]:
> This is the sort of absolutist nonsense that gives security experts a
> bad name. After all, anyone armed with a chainsaw can cut through a
> solid oak door in a matter of hours, so why bother installing a deadbolt
> on your door?
* Mathias Gygax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001.11.16 14:36:30+0100]:
> > > > Root is God. Anything you do on the system is potentially visible to
> > > > root.
>
> this is, with the right patches applied, not true.
^^
> can very fine tune the setup. f
* Mathias Gygax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001.11.16 15:06:54+0100]:
> > well, i thought this is the definition of root.
>
> no. with LIDS you can protect files and syscalls even from root. in my
> setup, root cannot even write to his own home directory.
... which root can change at convenience. this
first in this discussion root == maintianer of the box
you are suggesting the maintainer of the box has no pysical access and
no privileges to maintain the box. this makes no sense.
On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 05:39:43PM +0100, Mathias Gygax wrote:
>
> i don't care. i can seal LIDS that you can on
1 - 100 of 179 matches
Mail list logo
