From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <a9bde0ac2ae98aafce1992786d696cc8@9netics.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] security
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 23:30:47 -0700
From: Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com>
In-Reply-To: <47242801.5030701@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: dc6e891e-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

>> you are stating truisms.  you might as well add "how about poisoning
>> your friends that you invited for dinner." at that point you're
>> betraying an implicit trust.
>> 
> 
> "Implicit trust" is a ridiculous thing to allow in a computer network
> or host.
> 
>> if you don't trust your users, you can create a temporary namespace to
>> house a copy of system binaries and narrow the / for that user to
>> his/her ns.
>>
> 
> So you're never going to 9fs a remote system and cd
> /n/somebox/some/path? :-)

your comments seem contradictory to me.  on the one hand you imply
that there is trust - presumably to collaborate, hence the reason
you'd want to import a foreign fs and be allowed to do so by the foreign
fs owner to start - and then you say trust is ridiculous.