[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Supporting POSIX *users*
From: |
Alfred M\. Szmidt |
Subject: |
Re: Supporting POSIX *users* |
Date: |
Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:26:48 +0200 |
Okay. Please explain how to safely run a browser plugin when the
plugin can write to anything in the file system.
Why must it not write anything in the file-system? I fail to see the
point. I'm using emacs for my daily work, it would be a pita if you
confined emacs to only allow touch some file depending on the frame or
buffer I'm using.
> Right, you want to secure your system by not making the wrong
> syscalls in your code? And why do you think a hostile application
> is going to live by that rule?
>
> And by not implementing the `evil syscalls', as I have said repetedly!
> You cannot use a syscall if it doesn't exist. That is what I mean by
> don't call it, don't use it, etc.
Cool. Please remove open(), socket(), [gs]etuid(), and fork() for
starters.
There is nothing (fundamentally) wrong with open(), socket() or
fork(). getuid/setuid are simple to work around, which is done on the
Hurd (on Linux it is a syscall, we just wrap it around so auth is
happy and provide something similar, a bit to similar...).
Seriously: I think you have not actually sat on a standards
committee if you can say this.
And I think that you have missed the shalls/must bits in the standard.
There are lots of optional bits in POSIX.
Alfred: you are simply wrong. And you have been pointed at the
formal results that conclusively, mathematically *prove* that you
are wrong, you have ignored them, and you persist in making this
wrong assertion.
Sorry, but it is you who are wrong, you constantly refer to scientific
`proofs' that have no realition to reality. I really don't care about
a 100% secure system, why? Because it isn't practical to implement.
In theory it is all dandy, but in reality it is a pile of unusable
crap.
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users* (was: Re: Does supporting POSIX applications require ACLs?), (continued)
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users* (was: Re: Does supporting POSIX applications require ACLs?), Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/26
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users* (was: Re: Does supporting POSIX applications require ACLs?), Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/10/26
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users* (was: Re: Does supporting POSIX applications require ACLs?), Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/10/27
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users*, Bas Wijnen, 2005/10/27
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users*, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/10/27
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users*, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/27
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users*,
Alfred M\. Szmidt <=
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users*, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/27
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users*, Michal Suchanek, 2005/10/28
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users*, Ludovic Courtès, 2005/10/27
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users*, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/27
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users* (was: Re: Does supporting POSIX applications require ACLs?), Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/27
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users* (was: Re: Does supporting POSIX applications require ACLs?), Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/10/27
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users* (was: Re: Does supporting POSIX applications require ACLs?), Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/27
- Re: Supporting POSIX *users* (was: Re: Does supporting POSIX applications require ACLs?), Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/10/27
- Re: Let's do some coding :-), Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/10/25
- Re: Let's do some coding :-), Marcus Brinkmann, 2005/10/25