Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 22:11:28 -0700 (PDT) From: dima@best.net (Dima Ruban) To: tsprad@set.spradley.tmi.net (Ted Spradley) Cc: dima@best.net, louie@TransSys.COM, trost@cloud.rain.com, stable@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kernel permissions Message-ID: <199804160511.WAA03453@burka.rdy.com> In-Reply-To: <E0yPgmY-0004v7-00@set.spradley.tmi.net> from Ted Spradley at "Apr 16, 98 00:00:17 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ted Spradley writes: > > > > 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. Okay. Here's an example. Ever hear of a commertially available drivers? When you install such stuff, you don't want somebody to be able to read them, or have a copy of kernel with them. Why? Because you did pay for them and whoever wants to have an access - didnt. Normal users *do not need* to have an read acces to the kernel. They simply don't. Do you need any other examples? What's the deal with arguing on such a simply issue? > > -- dima To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199804160511.WAA03453>