No programs that write to 'C:\' or 'C:\Windows' would be installed by me on
my own machine or on the company networks I have worked on. No programmer on
Unix or Windows (in this day and age) should assume that it can write
anywhere but the user's home directory. From a security model perspective
U
P. Christeas wrote:
>
> Just my humble opinion on this:
> 1. One reason Unix security model is still around is that it is
> simple. ACLs
> and such need more administration and are more likely to be
> configured wrong.
That is absolutely true. Plus it is much easier to see who has what
permissions
Just my humble opinion on this:
1. One reason Unix security model is still around is that it is simple. ACLs
and such need more administration and are more likely to be configured wrong.
Unix, on the other hand, is compulsory (you *have* to set the permissions
everywhere) and simple. In modern k
Joshua Walker wrote:
From futzing with
an XP box at work, I don't see any real obvious way of
locking down permissions on files and such. Right
click/properties on a file gives me the same tierd DOS
flags that haven't changed since DOS 3.0
I've allowed myself to change the order of quotes a little
The one known as "Steven Edwards" hath scripted:
-
The unix security design of users and groups with
permissions is not
bad its just outdated. The nice thing about Unix is
adding new security
modules via PAM is not to bad except they are only for
authentication.
The
Hello Alex,
I am going to drag this semi-off topic for a bit while I plant some
ideas in people heads.
--- Aleksey Bragin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If ROS will support (and I bet it will!) NT 4.0 security model (or,
> better,
> Win2k then) it would be just great!
> Certainly people with deeper
