Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!decwrl!ogicse!qiclab!leonard From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy Subject: Re: Possibly nefarious users Message-ID: <1991Jun25.061208.6009@qiclab.scn.rain.com> Date: 25 Jun 91 06:12:08 GMT References: <2D.-_.N@cs.widener.edu> <1991Jun6.214915.18946@athena.mit.edu>, <1991Jun7.164102.672@progress.com> , <1991Jun10.053229.4305@qiclab.scn.rain.com> <4cIuopy00j69QAZE4H@andrew.cmu.edu> Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon. Lines: 77 jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) writes: >leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes: >> Sorry, but it is *impossible* to use even a guest account and not be >> using *some* system resources. A socket, if nothing else. More likely >> one of a *limited* number of ports. > Perhaps on the systems you use - our the systems never have that >sort of a problem - we always have enough resources (such as sockets, >etc.) to allow someone to access them, if they want to. However, our >department has decided that it's too much of a security risk to allow >acccess via guest accounts or anonymous ftp. Now, if you eat up our >disk space, then people might get upset - more likely, the problem >would get forwarded to me and I'd kill your files. End of story. Really? I'm amazed. We *only* have 250 ports on our main server. And we have had to take measures to be sure that they weren't being wasted. (things like users being logged in but just sitting at the system prompt for *hours*) I'd be rather surprised if *any* system has so many outdail ports that the use of on isn't at least a *potential problem. We get complaints when folks call us and say "Why can't I login?". And when we discovered that a user had been logging in from several machines at once to "multi-task" we had a talk with him. Usage increases to match available resources. And the folks that those resources were obtained for *should* have first crack at them. (yes, I know that you disagree with this, I'll get to that) >> Finally, the *correct* moral standard is "it's not yours!", not "But I'm >> not hurting anything." Property rights *do* exist in c-space. > Actually, the *correct* moral standard isn't "it's not yours!" - >that's silly. Property rights *SHOULDN'T* exist in c-space. It's >incredibly dumb to take up sectors and sectors of disk space just >because you can - if we had a more open system, my files could exist >on any machine - they could be so well distributed that the resulting >drain on *ANY ONE PARTICULAR SYSTEM* would be negligible. Clearly, >the extension of property rights to cyber-space will result in a >less-than-optimal use of resources merely to satisfy stupid primate >instincts is those who have the $$$ to buy disks, ethernet >controllers, etc. BLECH! Sorry, but as long as resources are *limited* this *will* be the case. Because the impact is *never* going to be "negligible". If your files are scattered that widely it'll take *extra* resources just for the "system" to find them. Extra traffic on the net looking for free space, etc. You are suffereing from innumeracy. Your argument assumes that adding up lots of little bites doesn't make one big mess. Even if *you* only take a sector on each of a large number of machines, that doesn't mean that the impact is negligible. What you forget is that everyone else would be doing the same thing! And that adds up fast. One persons "vital files" are another person's "junk". Under *your* system, it'd be "first come, first served". This is not practical. When someone has purchased a system for "X" they are going to * *justifiably* get pissed off if they can't use it for that when they want to. Your complaint is that the resource allocation is "less than optimal" *for you*! Fine, obtain your *own* resources. If the costs are as negligible as you make out, then this should not be a problem. Otherwise, you've just proven my point. It's not a practical way to allocate things. For an analogy, We think that you are making less than optimal use of your living space, so we are (all) going to borrow a little of it. We do *mot* care that you had that empty space set aside for something you are going to do next week. After all, you aren't using it *now*... -- Leonard Erickson leonard@qiclab.rain.com personal: CIS: [70524,2603] 70524.2603@compuserve.com business: CIS: [70376,1107] 76376.1107@compuserve.com