Re: [9fans] Re: Using 9P(2000) in Unix/Linux(/Windows)

[ron minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov>]

On Thu, 15 May 2003, Dan Cross wrote:

> Which is why he's interested in the Plan 9 way of doing things; you
> kind of get that for free.  Ron's done 9p; the challenge is porting
> the Plan 9 authentication module to Linux; otherwise, it does the
> things you describe as being necessary for security, without storing
> anything locally on the CD (so you can lend it out to your hearts
> content).

A different question. If you have a small CPU module, with no disk, which
has Plan 9 in flash, and the nvram info in #r/nvram, does this get you
closer to being secure than a CD-based linux boot? My assumption has
always been 'yes' but maybe that's not right. I'm just curious what people
think on this one.

Obviously physical tampering and the other modes are open. But if we rule
those out is the box somewhat safer 'in the field' than a linux box? What
can be done to tighten it up further?

I've always figured that Plan 9 has a fundamental advantage in this case.
It's a not-much-examined assumption on my part.

ron