Adam Chlipala wrote: > > Just to make sure there is no confusion, I'm going to assume that anyone > who objected forgot about this, and so there are no objections now. The > alternatives that I see are: > - Someone wants to question Justin's appointment as an admin. > - Someone doesn't think it's appropriate to increase the number of > people with access to all files beyond the current four people. In that > case, I think it would make more sense to revoke access from one of the > two current admins who do approximately nothing with their privileges. > > So pipe up if you harbor one of these objections or a different objection. > > Admins and key individuals should be provided with what sort of security measures will be enforced on an off-site network / computer in order to safeguard user data from intruders.
With that information then it would be a much easier sale and encryption wouldn't be quite as necessary. My idea was that the off-site network / computer wouldn't have the private key of an archive in order to prevent a malicious attacker from gaining access to it. Granted, attacks on a strong private key would take ages, but someone could have such a desire if they believed a bounty of password retrieval emails. Ryan _______________________________________________ HCoop-SysAdmin mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hcoop.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hcoop-sysadmin
