Olivier Galibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:30:12PM +0100, Niels M�ller wrote: > > The point of the Hurd is make file systems (as well as some other > > things that traditionally live in kernel land) fun and *easy* for > > ordinary users to run, install and hack.
> [1] Very nice, but also lacking a working security model. As far as I can see, the security is just fine. You can't crash the kernel or other users processes by installing your own translators. If you don't trust other user's translators, then don't follow them (that's what O_NOTRANS is for). Issues are about the same as for following traditional unix symlinks, and it's about the same kind of programs that need to care about it. All the more or less broken /tmp cleaner scripts are the archetypical example. I'm not sure this is the right place for that discussion, but if you want to argue that hurd security suck, you will have to explain what are your security requirements, precisely how the hurd is broken, and (if you claim traditional unices like linux and bsd are better) how traditional unix satisfies your security requirements. I can see some security issues in the current hurd, but they don't have much to do with translators. /Niels _______________________________________________ Help-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-hurd
