Re: NFS4 authentification / fsuid
From: Satyam Sharma
Date: Wed Sep 19 2007 - 10:09:42 EST
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Kyle Moffett wrote:
>
> > [all sorts of crap about spies in washington needing stronger protection
> > than your average consumer]
>
> [snip]
>
> [...] all the bullcrap about foreign intelligence
Hehe, again, *you* started all the "bullcrap" about foreign "governments"
in the first place :-)
> is just drawing
> focus off of how easy it is to achieve *adequate* physical protection where it
^^^^^^^^
> matters.
Ah, so you're qualifying the discussion with the nice and subjective
"adequate" ... (you're still wrong, of course)
> Of course, this also relies on being able to teach the stupid lusers with the
> laptops not to give their boot password to the "service tech on the phone"
Let's stick on-topic here ... remember "securing a system against attacker
with physical access is fairly simple" ?
[ Took the liberty of removing some irrelevant digressions -- didn't see
any solid security scheme that fulfils/justifies your earlier claim over
there. ]
> > > If your system equates end-user with attacker
> >
> > "If"? Was there ever any doubt?
> >
> > Heh, did you even read the thread you just replied to?
>
> Yes I did [...]
No, you didn't -- it was obvious from your reply :-)
> and I wanted to make it *really* clear that with average hardware
> you can properly protect against virtually all of the *common* attack vectors.
^^^^^^
But what gave you the impression we're interested in discussing "common"
or "adequate enough" attack vectors here?
See, if you have something useful/new to contribute to the discussion,
that we don't already know, then please don't hold back and feel free to
do so ...
Satyam
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/