From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3BB9D90C.C27A64E3@zip.com.au> From: Matthew Hannigan MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: permissions idea (Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses) References: <20010928010622.17297199E7@mail.cse.psu.edu>, <3BB89647.BD039EE5@zip.com.au> <3BB8BCC0.CC5C9FC2@null.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:11:08 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: fad10bf6-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 "Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote: > > Matthew Hannigan wrote: > > ... perhaps we could have ... > > I don't think any scheme with fixed categories of trust > can suffice for heavy-duty security. ... Sure; I was just trying to figure out how to get the mostest for the leastest. I still think that my scheme of two groups solves a large nr of cases. How does plan9 solve the problem of someone wanting to allow his close friends having write access, acquaintances read access and others none? I had a look at the man page but it seems to have the same triple as unix. Or can the owner be a group? Regards, -Matt