From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <4724B007.6090908@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 09:51:35 -0600
From: don bailey <don.bailey@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070816)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] security
References: <2cc6e509319590eee5371dc0def82e1a@9netics.com>
In-Reply-To: <2cc6e509319590eee5371dc0def82e1a@9netics.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: dcd34f70-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> in that case, one should build a sandbox, climb into it and import the
> fs.  the potential damage is contained.  maybe 9fs should have an
> option to do that.
> 

What if the trojan broke out of that sandbox? Or knows how to
import other parts of the namespace into its process? Namespaces
on Plan 9 are nice, but they absolutely do not constitute a safe
sandbox. Boo easy answers.

> i didn't say implicitly trust everything, but if you decided to be
> part of a group, you're implicitly trusting them.  it would be as
> if you asked every coworker to walk through a metal detector
> before they could approach you. if you don't, then you're implicitly
> trusting they wont harm you.
> 

Making a parallel between your workplace environment and a network
security environment is a dangerous thing. Have you ever seen a
little green blob with one eye stuck to the top of your coworker's
head, controlling your coworker's thoughts and actions? Get back
to me when you do :-)

D


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHJLAFyWX0NBMJYAcRAh/yAKCtO43h0CDQNNIgHa61cScvZsyrtQCghkeH
YWX7Av8QNVBExdlX5JK8voY=
=lkC4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----