Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 15:08:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Ben Black <black@zen.cypher.net> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: Drew Derbyshire <ahd@kew.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: granting auth to processes Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970618150727.1835B-100000@zen.cypher.net> In-Reply-To: <199706181709.KAA20980@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
because ACLs are generally pretty heavyweight and in my experience with NT tremendously easy to misconfigure. i am a big fan of capabilities because they are only marginally more complex than traditional UNIX permissions, while allowing arbitrary levels of access control. On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Terry Lambert wrote: > [ ... he want's ACLs ... ] > > Why not use ACLs? > > Seriously, there are a number of people who have asked me questions > about data-hiding and name space intrusions for projects like quota > FS's, compressing FS's, and ACL FS's. I'm sure at least several of > them are close to working code, if not already there. You should > ask on the FS list. > > > Terry Lambert > terry@lambert.org > --- > Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present > or previous employers. >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.3.91.970618150727.1835B-100000>