Bug#56821: [POSSIBLE GRAVE SECURITY HOLD]
- To: John Goerzen <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Samuel Tardieu <email@example.com>
- Cc: Adam Di Carlo <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Huneycutt, Doug" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Subject: Bug#56821: [POSSIBLE GRAVE SECURITY HOLD]
- From: Pierre Beyssac <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 17:52:55 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20000202175255.E50448@enst.fr>
- Reply-to: Pierre Beyssac <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] email@example.com>; from John Goerzen on Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 09:42:42AM -0600
- References: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org> <[🔎] email@example.com>
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 09:42:42AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> As you can see, some of these are within our control, some are not. I
> believe we should, and have, provide mechanisms to allow a box to be
> secured in such a fashion. However, using them in such a fashion BY
> DEFAULT is not in anyone's best interest.
Oh yes, you're right!
Given that some people have the atomic bomb anyway, we can get rid
of any computer security and access control, completely.
How stupid of me.
BTW, certainly we should all quit our job and start growing oranges
Pierre Beyssac firstname.lastname@example.org