From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9ab217670904161825k467a8a4ew31689b207f6ab984@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9ab217670904161636p62f77a18ufe0c14ac6245f078@mail.gmail.com>
	 <3535ae9780efe698b30d5c4bf8f5b5b7@quanstro.net>
	 <9ab217670904161825k467a8a4ew31689b207f6ab984@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:59:58 +1000
Message-ID: <dd6fe68a0904161859h22671717h2cb8ccc320858169@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] security questions
From: Russ Cox <rsc@swtch.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Topicbox-Message-UUID: df45209c-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> That said, I don't disagree. Perhaps Plan 9's environment hasn't been
> assumed to contain malicious users. Which brings up the question: Can
> Plan 9 be safely run in a potentially malicious environment? =C2=A0Based =
on
> this argument, no, it cannot. Since I want to run Plan 9 in this sort
> of environment (and thus move away from that assumption), I want to
> address these problems, and I kind of feel like it's weird to be
> essentially told, ``Don't do that.''

If you were trying to run Plan 9 on systems that were allowed
to flip 1% of the bits in memory at random each day, we'd tell
you "don't do that" too.

Linux and FreeBSD and OS X can't be run in the kind of
environment you describe either.  If people are being malicious
and trying to take down the system, the right fix is to kick them off.

If you want true isolation between the users you should give
them each a VM, not a Plan 9 account.

Russ