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=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 10144 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2021 16:05:10 -0000 Received: from 1ess.inri.net (216.126.196.35) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 22 Jan 2021 16:05:10 -0000 Received: from 5ess.inri.net ([107.191.111.177]) by 1ess; Fri Jan 22 10:39:36 -0500 2021 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([104.59.85.219]) by 5ess; Fri Jan 22 10:39:35 -0500 2021 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 10:39:32 -0500 From: Stanley Lieber To: 9front@9front.org In-Reply-To: References: <154A2B81E5307985989F46BE958ACBAC@eigenstate.org> <84C199F8-15A4-4434-AD56-A35AB5CC6F4A@stanleylieber.com> <7AF49F1D-0B66-4C09-B7BA-32FB34872CAF@stanleylieber.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-ID: <9front.9front.org> List-Help: X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: encrypted proxy cache information realtime-java optimizer Subject: Re: [9front] user none: cwfs vs hjfs Reply-To: 9front@9front.org Precedence: bulk On January 22, 2021 10:01:34 AM EST, hiro <23hiro@gmail=2Ecom> wrote: >well there's a lot of truth in that joke=2E > >and it really does look like they thought about proper security >concepts=2E but providing a nice basis, an OS, and making sure every >program uses it correctly are two different things=2E > >it might be that this dissonance can be explained some other way=2E 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=2E > >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=2E > >On 1/22/21, Stanley Lieber wrote: >> On January 22, 2021 4:14:24 AM EST, hiro <23hiro@gmail=2Ecom> wrote: >>>> do you seriously not follow what i'm saying here or are you just tryi= ng >>>> to >>>> map out a solution? >>> >>>i was trying to imagine out loud how the existing security >>>architecture could be utilized as fully as possible=2E >>> >>>i am not saying it is the best solution, just trying to stay on the >>>track that the bell-labs people have laid out=2E >>> >>>i am not saying we didn't break it=2E but if we know the intent of the >>>basic architecture we might be able to fix it without creating a >>>second system=2E >>> >> >> yeah, i'm with you there=2E i really think they just tried to sidestep = this >> whole issue by stipulating anyone with fs access was trusted=2E remembe= r the >> "joke" about securing the fs by locking the server room door? >> >> sl >> > there is definitely a disconnect between "everyone uses the same fs" and t= he way they implemented all these services for mere users=2E sl