Xref: utzoo comp.unix.internals:2600 comp.unix.admin:1657 Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals,comp.unix.admin Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Unix security additions Message-ID: Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC References: <39950@cup.portal.com> <1991Mar14.230944.9184@eci386.uucp> <1991Mar22.024124.3238@ec <1090@mwtech.UUCP> <19183@rpp386.cactus.org> <1991Apr12.101319.8523@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 15:49:15 GMT In article <1991Apr12.101319.8523@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> thomson@hub.toronto.edu (Brian Thomson) writes: > In article peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >In article <19183@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes: > >> Likewise, if you can only restore > >> files that were backed up using the special utilities, you can't just > >> put any program you want on the system. > >Sure: back up to tape, read tape on a non-secure system, edit it, write > >it out again, and restore. > You don't get a secure installation by buying a secure machine and > putting it in a location where a user can tamper with its backup tapes. We're not talking about random users here. We're talking about the regular backup operators. > Of course secure systems require physical safeguards! Of course, but who watches the people who work behind those safeguards? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"