From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Apr 15 22:01:04 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA04361 for freebsd-stable-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 22:01:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from set.spradley.tmi.net (set.spradley.tmi.net [207.170.107.99]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA04338; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 22:00:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tsprad@set.spradley.tmi.net) Received: from localhost (set.spradley.tmi.net) [127.0.0.1] by set.spradley.tmi.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yPgmY-0004v7-00; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 00:00:18 -0500 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: dima@best.net cc: louie@TransSys.COM (Louis A. Mamakos), trost@cloud.rain.com, stable@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kernel permissions In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 15 Apr 1998 21:41:56 PDT." <199804160441.VAA03293@burka.rdy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 00:00:17 -0500 From: Ted Spradley Message-Id: Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > > By this reasoning, there's no point in removing read permission either. > > Of course there is. Because user doesn't need to have this information. Is this what your argument boils down to -- *Your* users don't have a 'Need to Know' (to use the Pentagon expression). Maybe I prefer to encourage my users to learn as much as they will about the system. Maybe I take a very negative attitude about keeping any information secret, so I consider long and hard before I remove read permission for anybody from any information. Maybe that's why I use a system that has freely available source code. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message