On 12/5/07, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Martin Marcher wrote: > > So the user needs to get a precompiled gcc somewhere. > > Then she would need to get all the header files necessary > > Then she needs to get the source. > > Then the quota is full... :) > > Most systems come with perl. Perl can do anything any non-suid program > in /sbin can do. Most systems come with ar, tar, and wget. This can be > used to download any .deb and unpack it. The kind of "security" you're > suggesting has hstorically worked miserably, see for example Microsoft > Windows, which does not come with a C compiler or many useful programs.
/usr/bin/perl /usr/bin/wget /bin/tar exactly my point none of these tools would be accessible in the first place without explicit permission by the sysadmin. And btw. I'm not talking about tools, etc. I see a tendency in systems being more secured with RBAC, MAC, auditing tools, $whatever. But since *nix has a history of being secure because a user/process can't by default destroy any data besides the data one/it owns. Why not take that one further and require explicit permission to even run a program that can potentially destroy data? * Why not take that one further and require explicit permission to run _any_ program? Revoking "others" access by default does just that. I think my point wasn't clear. -- http://noneisyours.marcher.name http://feeds.feedburner.com/NoneIsYours -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
