On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 10:08:33AM +0100, Moritz Schulte wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Niels M?ller) writes: > > > Well, because it's a friendly thing to do? > > Well, I don't think that is a good argument. Then you could also ask > why we care about (local) privacy at all.
Things you care about should have read permissions for others and the users without UID. > > (When I open my door for a visitor, I don't usually lock the doors > > to rooms that the visitor isn't supposed to see, and sometimes I > > even encourage them to look around). > > Yes, true. But the point is that you don't know wether it's a nice > visitor or an intruder. I also don't understand the purpose, because > a user would surely login if he would have real work to do at the > sytem. The login shell is run without UIDs, it should give a security problem. Some visitor without an account can use the system and do real work. > > And because the typical local user nowadays has physical access to > > the machine, so it's usually futile to stop attacks from evil local > > users. > > True, if a user has physical access, he would be able to spy out data > anyway. But I think, we shouldn't have our door that open however. You can see a lot of things easily with physical access which you can't if you have no UIDs in the system. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: jeroen@openprojects
msg01844/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
