Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!ccut!titcca!cc.titech.ac.jp!necom830!mohta
From: mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: Complex security mechanism is unsecure
Message-ID: <6959@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp>
Date: 19 Dec 90 11:56:40 GMT
References: <6922@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp> <18826@rpp386.cactus.org> <18827@rpp386.cactus.org> <6948@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp> <18840@rpp386.cactus.org>
Sender: news@cc.titech.ac.jp
Organization: Tokyo Institute of Technology
Lines: 42

In article <18840@rpp386.cactus.org>
	jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes:

>>Smaller? It is not my opinion. My opnion is, it is less complex.
>
>Sure, and letting everyone log onto the system as "root" is also
>less complex.

Moreover, with current UNIX, it is as secure as letting everyone log
onto the system as "uucp".

>You have yet to demonstrate how being less complex
>is some assurance of security.

Isn't it obvious that, if all important files are owned only by root,
letting everyone log onto the system as "uucp" becomes secure.

>>This is the news.

>The oldest references that I am aware of predate the 1978 BSTJ
>"UNIX" edition.  While it might be "information", it isn't
>"new" information.  I would say that it is at least 12 year
>old information.

But, still, you don't understand the importance of simplicity.

>NFS =is= a security hole.

Yes, it is, partly because it is complex.

>Now, if you can come up with a flaw in layered security on a
>properly administered system, then it might be "interesting".

I know it is impossible to properly administrate a system with
layered security such as ACL.

>security on a system with NFS is to remove NFS.  Changing all
>the file ownerships to "root" will not save your ass.

Remove NFS? You had better remove your ass.

						Masataka Ohta