🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov12.084549.5128@unix.brighton.ac.uk>, ddv@unix.brighton.ac.uk (Domenico De Vitto) writes:
> Any org. that has a _root_ password in _a_ dictionary gets all it deserves.
> 
> Dom

Any company that uses a braindead operating system that makes passwords readable
in encrypted form in the first place is braindead.

50,000 crypts per second in FORTRAN on a Cray sounds nice. I have played
with much faster machines than that though, imagine what the CRAY will
do once it has the bucket of Alpha chips bolted on... say a 1024 point
array running 200 Mips... Exhaustive search starts to look quite 
feasible.

If a computer is delivered in an unsecure state IT IS THE MAUFACTURERS
FAULT!

We should NOT go arround patching up garbage, especialy when the garbage
costs a significant amount of money. I for one don't see why I should
spend time patching a $2000 operating system.

It's one thing for a manufacturer to screw up and throw out a security
flaw. But the open password file has been present in UNIX for ten years.

AND I DO KNOW THAT A "PROTECTED" PASSWORD FILE IS NOT SAFE EITHER !

But I DO Know that it is a damn sight safer, especialy when there is
a pinhead sysop.

In the real world computers have to be built for pinheads. People
who try to sell a product that requires intelligence to operate it
are not going to sell much.

I for one would rather spend my time learning about something a
bit more interesting than the failings of 1970's spaghetti code
operating systems.


Phill Hallam-Baker
With 10 years UNIX experience I have the right to say it sucks.