From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 15:52:40 -0400 To: corey@bitworthy.net, 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <201009011214.12488.corey@bitworthy.net> References: <4cefc0a5c0d62eb41b916816776836e1@brasstown.quanstro.net> <201009011214.12488.corey@bitworthy.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [9fans] how to lock cpu console Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4d021daa-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > Also, a logical fallacy: Since X could sometimes be used to thwart Y, then > Y is useless in all cases. i think the correct statement of the thinking (or at least my thinking) is we want to assert X, but since Y defeats X, we require !Y to assert X. in something closer to english, the assertion is that if one requires a secure server, you've got to have physical security. since there are too many easy ways to circumvent most known security measures given physical access. i don't think this assertion has anything to say about console locking, just that it doesn't solve the stated problem— execepting, of course, if the data on non-volatile storage is is encrypted and the key is lost on reboot. - erik