On 11-Sep-2003/15:54 -0500, Dave Ihnat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 01:58:59PM -0500, B McAndrews wrote: >> Could someone staighten me out here. When did Unix based system become >> the bastion of security? > >Ever since the standard it is compared to is Microsoft... > >> In a former lifetime, I used to work on VAX/VMS for classified (as >> in military) work. I can't remember the issues, but when we started >> moving off the VAX/VMS over to Unix workstations, the IT security >> folks were not at all comfortable with the security of Unix compared >> to the VAX/VMS. Does anyone have any insights as to why that might be? > >Sure; there are a lot of them. One of the most telling is the fact >that permissions on Unix/Linux are binary--you're root, or you're not. >There's no provision in standard Unix/Linux for graduated levels of >authority, or for cooperative privileges (e.g., it takes both the Security >Officer and Administrator, each providing a separate authentication, >to gain certain security levels; no one person can do so.)
You obviously know this, but I think it's necessary to mention that there is at least one ACL system for Linux. Tony -- Anthony E. Greene <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP Key: 0x6C94239D/7B3D BD7D 7D91 1B44 BA26 C484 A42A 60DD 6C94 239D AOL/Yahoo Messenger: TonyG05 HomePage: <http://www.pobox.com/~agreene/> Linux. The choice of a GNU generation <http://www.linux.org/> -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
