Re: How efficient is mounting /usr ro?
Quoting Bernd Eckenfels (ecki@calista.eckenfels.6bone.ka-ip.net):
> In article <[🔎] 20031018055739.GC6350@dijkstra.csh.rit.edu> you wrote:
> > In the IT field, "security" refers specifically to unauthorized use, as in
> > "security guard", and "security system". It does not, in general, refer to
> > the more generic definitions of "security", as in "security blanket",
> > "securities and exchange commission", or "job security".
>
> Can you show me a definition of that? I presented two which teach you otherwise.
To quote Garfinkel and Spafford (2nd edition, page 6):
"A formal definition wouldn't necessarily help you any more than our
working definition, and would require detailed explanations of risk
assessment, asset valuation, policy formation, and a number of other
topics beyond what we are able to present here." (in 971 pages).
Their definition:
"Computer Security: 'A computer is secure if you can depend on it and
its software to behave as you expect.'"
And they go on...
"Our practical definition might also imply to some that security is
concerned with issues of testing your software and hardware, and with
preventing user mistakes. However, we don't intend our definition to
be that inclusive."
So I for one would prefer to keep off debian-security such Safety
issues as mounting /usr ro (except to expose them as NOT a help
towards Security); though running linux off readonly media
(hardware-locked) is borderline on-topic.
Cheers,
--
Email: d.wright@open.ac.uk Tel: +44 1908 653 739 Fax: +44 1908 655 151
Snail: David Wright, Earth Science Dept., Milton Keynes, England, MK7 6AA
Disclaimer: These addresses are only for reaching me, and do not signify
official stationery. Views expressed here are either my own or plagiarised.
Reply to: