🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1ghs93INNl04@iraul1.ira.uka.de> s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) writes:
>In article <WCS.92Dec13203554@rainier.ATT.COM> wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705) writes:
>>
>>The main job of security is to say "NO".  
>>The main job of Unix is to say "Yes".
>
>O.K., you agree in this point: The main job of Unix is to get the
>user's work done.
>The main job of security is to stop the user from getting his work
>done.

Sorry, but I have to interject something in here.  I think it's false
to say that "the job of security is to prevent work from being done."
It is also false to say "The main job of security is to say "NO"."
These two statements oversimplify the situation.  IMHO, the "job of
security" is to allow the users to get their work done, and to protect
the value of that work by preventing it's unwanted destruction and/or
theft.

As a system administrator I can definitely say that I have much more
important and interesting things to do than to audit security reports
and watch people's keystrokes.

>
>Simply that Unix doesn't have more bugs than other OSs does in no way
>invalidate the statement that it doesn't have as much *features* to
>stop legitimate use. Take VMS, for example. Maybe there are less bugs
>in it. (Yes, it has bugs, too.) But definitely there are features in
>it that serve nobody but paranoid system admins who want to control
>every key any user may press, at the expense of memory and CPU time
>that otherwise could serve the user. Now tell me what is better ;-)
>

Your first statements defines the situation very well when you talk about
"legitimate use."  I know that there are probably some overzealous sys
admins out there who wish to control everything on the system, but the
real main concern that security addresses is legitimate use.  Anyone who
wants to spend all their time controlling access to everything will live
in a small, shell of a world for a long time, and most likely never have
a chance at learning more interesting and enriching things.  There are just
too many things going on at any particular point in time to justify the
effort required to control it all.

NOTE: Unix no better in this respect.  The security methods employed
depend on your specific sys admin's level of paranoia - even a Unix
system can be hell if the sys admin decides to control it too much.

Remember the early days of VMS, where mostly researchers use the
systems and there were no "mission critical" systems?  If Unix were to
grow in acceptance to the same level, you can bet the security would
become much tighter and the system would become less usable.

We purchase computer systems to do a job (or more than one job).
Essentially we expect that in the performance of that job there will
be some valuable results.  Proper security must balance between
protecting those valuable assets (results), yet still allow the
end-users to be productive.

Unix does not have (nor does any other operating system) any kind of
monopoly on "usefulness" when managed correctly.

-- 
-----
Jeff Sue   
 - All opinions are mine -       (and you can't have any, nya nya nya)