Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!cheviot!ncx From: ncx@cheviot.uucp (Lindsay F. Marshall) Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: Symbolic user names and RFS Message-ID: <606@cheviot.uucp> Date: Fri, 28-Feb-86 05:01:07 EST Article-I.D.: cheviot.606 Posted: Fri Feb 28 05:01:07 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 2-Mar-86 19:38:32 EST References: <674@oliveb.UUCP> <1246@ubc-ean.UUCP> <759@im4u.UUCP> <591@cheviot.uucp> <781@im4u.UUCP> Reply-To: ncx@cheviot.newcastle.ac.uk (Lindsay F. Marshall) Organization: U. of Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K. Lines: 22 In article <781@im4u.UUCP> jsq@im4u.UUCP (John Quarterman) writes: > >Jumping to conclusions makes for good flames but not good discussions. >-- What conclusions did I jump to??? I wasnt flaming, I was attempting to make a technical point - namely that the statement that a uid scheme such as yours was *imperative* for security was manifestly false. If you have evidence that this is not the case lets see it, otherwise dont try to sidetrack the issue. As far as I have seen none of the points you raised were mentioned by ANY of the posters on this topic - where did they come from??? I repeat again - the only advantage to be gained from having a homogeneous uid (or do you mean symbolic name??) space is administrative. Security is not enhanced at all in fact I think that it may even be decreased, as the space for name/uid guessing is well defined....... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lindsay F. Marshall, Computing Lab., U of Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne & Wear, UK ARPA : lindsay%cheviot.newcastle.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa JANET : lindsay@uk.ac.newcastle.cheviot UUCP : !ukc!cheviot!lindsay -------------------------------------------------------------------------------