On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:07:05 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 02:18:55AM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 07:57:46AM -0600, John Hasler wrote: > > > Sven Arvidsson writes: > > > > I'm not a Windows user myself, but I hear of many Windows users > > > > who actually know that they shouldn't run as admin but are > > > > forced to do so because a lot of applications, installers and > > > > games simply will not run on an unprivileged account. > > > > > > Nothing forces them to run those applications. If they really > > > cared about security they would refuse to buy such programs and > > > the publishers would get the message. > > > > True, but quite often there is no choice. For example, at the local > > primary school there is quite a lot of educational software which > > comes under this umbrella. Although to be fair, I think it may be > > the way the security features of the admin account are setup. The > > average teacher is not aware of, or actually has time to learn > > about, security with regards to installing purchased educational > > software. > > I'd actually appreciate it if aptitude (or other such) would > distinguish between packages whose use requires root permissions > (whether by a setuid or not) and those that don't, and ask whether > this is really intended.
And who checks that the so-called harmless package is what it says. The non-root user doesn't know anything about md5sums, security, ... Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
