Xref: utzoo unix-pc.general:394 comp.sys.att:2593
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!im4u!woton!riddle
From: riddle@woton.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle )
Newsgroups: unix-pc.general,comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: Major security problem in the UA: looking for a real fix
Summary: A UNIX box should have more than DOS security.
Keywords: UNIX PC, UA, security hole
Message-ID: <1024@woton.UUCP>
Date: 3 Feb 88 17:11:45 GMT
References: <1023@woton.UUCP> <2017@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Shriners Burns Institute, Galveston
Lines: 17
Insecurity-Free: "Bob"

In article <2017@bsu-cs.UUCP>, dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
> 
> The UNIX PC was supposed to be a personal computer (i.e. a computer
> owned and operated by an individual for the individual's own use)
> running UNIX.  The lack of strenuous security is in keeping with
> this philosophy.

Sorry, but I don't consider that argument good enough.  AT&T sold us
the UNIX PC for use in a multi-user office/research environment, and
its chief selling point was that it was a personal computer running
UNIX.  Any machine which runs UNIX should have (at least!) normal UNIX
security.  If we had wanted the vulnerability to error and abuse of the
security-free DOS world, we would have bought a DOS machine. 

--- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.")
--- Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.
--- riddle@woton.UUCP  {ihnp4,harvard}!ut-sally!im4u!woton!riddle