From owner-freebsd-stable  Tue May 29 16:42:46 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from earth.backplane.com (earth-nat-cw.backplane.com [208.161.114.67])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 45F4E37B422; Tue, 29 May 2001 16:42:44 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from dillon@earth.backplane.com)
Received: (from dillon@localhost)
	by earth.backplane.com (8.11.3/8.11.2) id f4TNgil32170;
	Tue, 29 May 2001 16:42:44 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from dillon)
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 16:42:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>
Message-Id: <200105292342.f4TNgil32170@earth.backplane.com>
To: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG>
Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: adding "noschg" to ssh and friends 
References:  <200105292346.f4TNkvT01837@mass.dis.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-stable.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-stable>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-stable>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG


:
:> :Er, Matt.  I appreciate what you're trying to say, but this argument is 
:> :logically invalid.  You could use it to argue that any security is a bad 
:> :idea because it forces people to do sneakier things.
:> 
:>     I have to disagree.  Here, let me give a contrasting example:
:
:You're missing the point.  Stop arguing with me; I agree with you.  I'm 
:just telling you that the logic you're using to support your arguments is 
:faulty, and the argument suffers as a result. 8)

    Well, then I'm not sure what you are complaining about.  Somebody
    labeled 'schg' as being a security feature, and I disagreed.  It
    could be called a safety feature, but it certainly is not a security
    feature.

						-Matt


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message