lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Apr]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Single user linux
    imel96@trustix.co.id wrote:
    > for those who didn't read that patch, i #define capable(),
    > suser(), and fsuser() to 1. the implication is all users
    > will have root capabilities.

    And this is better than just having the system auto-login as root because......?


    >
    > then i tried to bring up the single user thing to hear
    > opinions (not flames). and by that, i actually didn't mean
    > to have users share the same uid/gid 0. i know somebody
    > will need to differentiate user.
    >
    > so when everybody suggested playing with login, getty, etc.
    > i know you have got the wrong idea. if i wanted to play
    > on user space, i'd rather use capset() to set all users
    > capability to "all cap". that's the perfect equivalent.
    >
    > so the user space solution (capset()) works, but then came
    > the idea to optimize away. that's what blow everybody up.
    > don't get me wrong, i always agree with rik farrow when he
    > wrote in ;login: that we should build software with security
    > in mind.
    >
    > but i also hate bloat. lets not go to arm devices, how about
    > a notebook. it's a personal thing, naturally to people who
    > doesn't know about computer, personal doesn't go with multi
    > user. by that i mean user with different capabilities, not
    > different persons.
    >

    So don't install any services. The security in the kernel is not even
    bloat compared to some of the cruft that you can just not install.

    > - with that patch, people will still have authentication.
    > so ssh for example, will still prevent illegal access, if
    > you had an exploit you're screwed up anyway.
    > sure httpd will give permission to everybody to browse
    > a computer, but i don't think a notebook need to run it.

    See above.

    >
    > so i guess i deserve opinions instead of flames. the
    > approach is from personal use, not the usual server use.
    > if you think a server setup is best for all use just say so,
    > i'm listening.

    I have Linux on my PowerBook. I don't have sendmail, httpd, mysql, and a
    billion other 'server' processes running. Does that still make it a server?

    We're not flaming (well some of us anyways). Just pointing out (loudly)
    where your thinking is flawed.

    > nah, performance was never my consideration. i do save about
    > 3kb from my zImage, but i'm not interested.

    But you just said you hate bloat. What other reason do you have for
    hating bloat?


    --

    =====================================================================
    Mohammad A. Haque http://www.haque.net/
    mhaque@haque.net

    "Alcohol and calculus don't mix. Project Lead
    Don't drink and derive." --Unknown http://wm.themes.org/
    batmanppc@themes.org
    =====================================================================
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.052 / U:31.564 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site