[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Supporting POSIX *users* (was: Re: Does supporting POSIX application
From: |
Alfred M\. Szmidt |
Subject: |
Re: Supporting POSIX *users* (was: Re: Does supporting POSIX applications require ACLs?) |
Date: |
Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:42:33 +0200 |
Let me elaborate instead, since Jonathan has comprehension
difficulties
> I don't see a way to start with POSIX and then improve it from
> there. POSIX has inherent insecurities built in. There are
> not many, but [...]
>
> So simply ignore those insecuritites.
Oh yes. That has worked *so* well for Microsoft.
But not _adding_ those insecuritites, 90% of POSIX is damn good, and
has nothing to do with security, and is merly a API for writting
portable programs. The remaining 10% have to do with some bits of
security, uid's and file permissions. These bits can be _ignored_ and
something different implemented on instead. Just like not
implementing chroot(), and using something different that is secure.
But you knew that and had to start a flame instead, and make absurd
claims that all of POSIX is inherently insecure, when in reality it
the majority of POSIX is totally irrelevant to implementing a secure
operating system.
- Re: Let's do some coding :-), (continued)
- Re: Let's do some coding :-), Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/24
- Re: Let's do some coding :-), ness, 2005/10/25
- Does supporting POSIX applications require ACLs?, Neal H. Walfield, 2005/10/25
- Re: Does supporting POSIX applications require ACLs?, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/25
- Re: Does supporting POSIX applications require ACLs?, Neal H. Walfield, 2005/10/25
- Supporting POSIX *users* (was: Re: Does supporting POSIX applications require ACLs?), olafBuddenhagen, 2005/10/25
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users* (was: Re: Does supporting POSIX applications require ACLs?), Marcus Brinkmann, 2005/10/26
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users* (was: Re: Does supporting POSIX applications require ACLs?), Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/10/26
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users* (was: Re: Does supporting POSIX applications require ACLs?), Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/26
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users* (was: Re: Does supporting POSIX applications require ACLs?), Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/10/26
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users* (was: Re: Does supporting POSIX applications require ACLs?),
Alfred M\. Szmidt <=
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users* (was: Re: Does supporting POSIX applications require ACLs?), Bas Wijnen, 2005/10/26
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users* (was: Re: Does supporting POSIX applications require ACLs?), Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/10/26
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users* (was: Re: Does supporting POSIX applications require ACLs?), Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/26
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users* (was: Re: Does supporting POSIX applications require ACLs?), Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/10/26
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users* (was: Re: Does supporting POSIX applications require ACLs?), Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/10/27
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users*, Bas Wijnen, 2005/10/27
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users*, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/10/27
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users*, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/27
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users*, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/10/27
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users*, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/27