From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <875210C0-4D03-4599-B573-DDFB38B9C32A@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp> References: <4724B007.6090908@gmail.com> <5d375e920710281143m5733e766xce46826611a7adf4@mail.gmail.com> <875210C0-4D03-4599-B573-DDFB38B9C32A@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <7AF6E918-2E0B-4959-AA06-5E48F8FF3D2D@mac.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Pietro Gagliardi Subject: Re: [9fans] security Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:29:33 -0400 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Topicbox-Message-UUID: ddab8ce6-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 I agree with Uriel as well. If you read my last post (I'll send it again if you didn't get it), I noticed some problems and I hope to find solutions or causes of them. Again, security is not my forte, but I know how to do it. On Oct 28, 2007, at 6:48 PM, arisawa@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp wrote: > I vote to Uriel. > > On 2007/10/29, at 3:43, Uriel wrote: >> >> I'm still wondering what is the cost of having path be (/bin .) >> (other >> than running scripts actually becoming much faster when access >> to . is >> slow). >> >> For once I'm with don, just because perfect security is impossible >> doesn't mean we should stop trying to get closer to it, specially >> when >> the cost (as far as anyone has been able to tell in this case) is >> negligible. >> >> What is next? we get rid of file permissions 'because your coworkers >> can already pick the pile of papers lying on your desk so you should >> trust them anyway. >> >> Seeing this kinds of arguments is quite sad, specially given how far >> ahead plan9 is from every other system when it comes to *real* >> *practical* security. >> >> And I'm an idiot, but this whole discussion has become quite stupid. >> >> uriel >