On Monday 10 June 2002 04:56 pm, you wrote: > On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 15:21 -0400, et wrote: > > On Monday 10 June 2002 08:04 am, you wrote: > > [snip] > > > > Here you go! Isn't that the state of permissions which should have been > > > there from the start? My experiment just tells the same as what I read > > > in the newsgroup: Although sec level 'Standard' is given during > > > installation, after the install all users can read all other user's > > > files. Only by manually punching in the msec command I get the 'normal' > > > secure status. > > > > > > Now who of the not-so-worn-out Linux users knows the msec command? Who > > > of the newbies even knows that he may have to do something? > > > > > > The unsuspicious newbie does an installation of a presumably more > > > secure system than he is used to in Win9x/ME but what does he really > > > get??? > > > > > > > > > wobo > > > > his security is better than m$winblows even at level 1 msec, since he > > still has to know the root password to install programs or write to > > system files. yes or no? > > That is not the point here. Here we talk about a situation that the user > is told he has a good security system but in reality all other users of > his computer can read his private files. > > In Windows I *know* about weak security and I act accordingly. In Linux > everybody tells me about how secure Linux is. > > wobo gee... everyone tells me about the choice linux gives, if you want seure you can go up to "paranoid", but most "newbies" would like to be able to choose. Of course if the discriptions of the difference in security levels is not very clear, maybe that is what the "problem" is?
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
