🚀 go-pugleaf

From:  sms@WLV.IMSD.CONTEL.COM (Steven M. Schultz)

In article <786@longway.TIC.COM> From:  pkr@sgi.com (Phil Ronzone)
>In article <780@longway.TIC.COM> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>This may well be true. But for a large set of problems the existing UNIX
>>security approach is quite sufficient. If you don't have the actual hardware
>>secured it's overkill.
>
>I disagree - secure software, from the boot code on, is very effective.

	i have to side with Peter on this.  the keywords were "large set
	of problems" and "quite sufficient" - that doesn't (at least to
	me) obviate the need for more strict security when the need
	arises, but for many situations just administering the systems
	correctly is enough.

	short of soldiers with M16s at a computer facility door i do not
	believe that software is any substitute for physical security.
	it's just one more password that has to be spread around (in
	case the SSO or whoever) goes on vacation, etc...

>>Security and convenience are opposed goals, and sometimes a system
>>MUST be available.

	agreed.

>I disagree again -- I think the recent Internet worm is an example of why.

	now it's my turn to disagree.  sheesh, why does the worm have to
	be brought up everytime security is discussed?  it was a BUG that
	was exploited, and i for one do not think that adding security
	will do away with BUGs in software.  on the contrary, as the
	complexity of the system is increased by the added software the
	number of bugs could actually increase, no? 
	
	and, if people can't administer systems "correctly" now - what's 
	going to happen when the amount of administration required increases 
	due to the files/databasei/etc that "security" will add to the system??

	Steven M. Schultz
	sms@wlv.imsd.contel.com

Volume-Number: Volume 20, Number 104