On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Lennart Poettering
On Mon, 27.10.08 15:29, Stephen John Smoogen (smooge(a)gmail.com)
> > Having desktop firewalls is security theatre. Having 20 levels of
> > false and inappropriate security is worse then having a single level
> > of security that is appropriate for the task.
> My guess is that having priv-sep, passwords, etc are all security
> theatre for the desktop user in this case. I mean if application X
> can't work without me being root then why not be root? If having a
> password slows me down from getting stuff done, why not remove it. For
> this level.. why are we doing anything beyond Windows 98 which seems
> to be the perfect desktop platform.
You are making stupid generalizations here, and you know that.
Lets just say we are talking past each other. I am sorry I got cranky
but the people who I am used to making such arguments usually don't
use firewalls, don't use any account but root and could care less
about passwords. All they consider to conflict with least suprise or
some such thing. When trying to design an enteprise solution where you
have to argue that their Phd and 30 years of coding means I am the
idiot.. I get a little testy. [It used to start that firewalls needed
to be off for them, now its selinux, then firewalls, then they need to
be UID 0, and then its why do I need screenlocks and passwords?] And
then when it goes up the chain they go and find all the references
that whatever security issue is not relevant to them which now will
include the above emails that firewalls have no place on the desktop
since Red Hat people say so.
So again, I am sorry I am a cranky stick-in-the-mud here.
Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"