> The real question is, how much more secure is a non-root Linux session
> compared to a non-Administrator NT or Win95 session? I haven't studied
> the specifics in detail but intuitively I'd bet there's a significant
> difference, and
> that it would manifest in the default Netscape behavior.
Unfortionatly, a non Admin user under NT is able to do *ALOT* that they
shouldn't be able to do. There simply wasn't the granularity of security
under NT required to secure individual things on an as needed basis. Now,
Windows 2000 solves *some* of these issues by adding another 'layer' of
users, which allows another lockdown level. Many of the things apps used to
be able to do under NT they simply cannot due under Windows 2000 under
normal security settings. They need to at least be run at 'PowerUser'
level, which is half way between a normal user and an administrator..
Unfortionatly, there is that added layer of being able to fairly easily
turn your self 'INTO' an Administrator under a Win NT network. It is *BY
FAR* easier to compromise a Windows network then it would be a Unix network
under normal conditions, and *NOT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF BUGS CAUSING HOLES*.
Theres a big difference there.. There are many bugs that they do indeed
consider features that allow ordinary people to do extreaordinary things as
an Administrator. Consider it a bunch o' ways to 'su' programs legally.
:-P
I'll forgot you mentioned the Win95 word.. :-P As secure as DOS is the
best way to say it. It's only use for user IDs is to save profile data,
that's it..
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
