From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 5952 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2021 15:28:39 -0000 Received: from 1ess.inri.net (216.126.196.35) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 22 Jan 2021 15:28:39 -0000 Received: from mail-ed1-f51.google.com ([209.85.208.51]) by 1ess; Fri Jan 22 10:01:44 -0500 2021 Received: by mail-ed1-f51.google.com with SMTP id j13so6913454edp.2 for <9front@9front.org>; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 07:01:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=3uBFwgQnvRNrDOivkcoIMEWXqfLtt7vsnF+du0AaPNw=; b=cqjvfupUR/VMU9TTWy03VEVR0JT4Qk+dkYlxinD87C3RhN99n1JimMPJ0W0EERjeAr 5pIb2kiDh7BKfF+0nbc3ZRUgvx3uwg8GbkBupBn8AOqrTnQZUkaBQseggja2H0eSCMyl mkGnIIuC47s0ei4GFamUsSzadku6ETghxugOR9V63bU8sNub0Q/ePwMa5Gb5XbKE5mdp wg06eB3XvQs9bO6OTN/qbJUTy5MiLDyQnFgswMx3dgj/QxEERQBPtEuc48CXr/N62nnB VpWinooOFhPvdxQFrpanoqhbigNurg47e4KGBCa1HWp8BHWSdUSD+JllzYCTD/GxQpjz 0yXg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=3uBFwgQnvRNrDOivkcoIMEWXqfLtt7vsnF+du0AaPNw=; b=FfxaSKVY7+9JC89HENsl3rpHZtedXSc3nil92gWmMWeKWlYFVSfSw0aUPUHPS4MFls 9wxRPJGo8A6n0GQHM5RZT3y7UPFIUfC/gdkOMMVGlj2L0l22WBYIqgek0XWtqfYL6Cxr x84tePJhp++mk0nP+73n1icMOSQejq4bSTkcxvHlwYKv012gJmsYfyeTR30MiS9utbdc SnQEG6BKm3ZMwo31IAWYrBp4my+M7zSzA7hF8YE5cPtSR/jRjjHsm3NBQIOHknXW9lSR ggsVaR0teGmEY2aWTlhVhhqui9r0nB798l4DP7yyFEearT4IbYfThz9koJs0+saF6cXM +kBw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5328+ho5i5wFoZX2JnwR957YM+HAVKK4NLzlTD8IQjrtzUVlRM+m hCGdem4UjvVXvGOUEMnTy8Foigx2S8Q4SitU3E3vjL4jkSg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJziuatqp2LqWSLQ7dFggh6mnDBGlT9C/80oNO4Iy4XRKZ6Ej79SvJJGP+aEIewad+pmpgQuBX3wH5WqGZobk/4= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:139a:: with SMTP id b26mr3544843edv.47.1611327694776; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 07:01:34 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a17:906:3f91:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 07:01:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <7AF49F1D-0B66-4C09-B7BA-32FB34872CAF@stanleylieber.com> References: <154A2B81E5307985989F46BE958ACBAC@eigenstate.org> <84C199F8-15A4-4434-AD56-A35AB5CC6F4A@stanleylieber.com> <7AF49F1D-0B66-4C09-B7BA-32FB34872CAF@stanleylieber.com> From: hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 16:01:34 +0100 Message-ID: To: 9front@9front.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" List-ID: <9front.9front.org> List-Help: X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: cache plugin just-in-time generator Subject: Re: [9front] user none: cwfs vs hjfs Reply-To: 9front@9front.org Precedence: bulk well there's a lot of truth in that joke. and it really does look like they thought about proper security concepts. but providing a nice basis, an OS, and making sure every program uses it correctly are two different things. it might be that this dissonance can be explained some other way. for example if the people involved in making the email stuff were different folks, who didn't know how to fit into that security architecture. as email has proven to be a longer-term thing after all, perhaps it's worth fixing the broken upas assumptions so that upas fits again with the rest of this system. On 1/22/21, Stanley Lieber wrote: > On January 22, 2021 4:14:24 AM EST, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote: >>> do you seriously not follow what i'm saying here or are you just trying >>> to >>> map out a solution? >> >>i was trying to imagine out loud how the existing security >>architecture could be utilized as fully as possible. >> >>i am not saying it is the best solution, just trying to stay on the >>track that the bell-labs people have laid out. >> >>i am not saying we didn't break it. but if we know the intent of the >>basic architecture we might be able to fix it without creating a >>second system. >> > > yeah, i'm with you there. i really think they just tried to sidestep this > whole issue by stipulating anyone with fs access was trusted. remember the > "joke" about securing the fs by locking the server room door? > > sl >