Bug#56821: [POSSIBLE GRAVE SECURITY HOLD]
- To: Pierre Beyssac <email@example.com>
- Cc: Samuel Tardieu <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Martijn van Oosterhout <email@example.com>, "Huneycutt,\ Doug" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Bug#56821: [POSSIBLE GRAVE SECURITY HOLD]
- From: Adam Di Carlo <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 13:20:31 -0600
- Message-id: <[🔎] 200002021920.NAA26071@cafe.onshore.com>
- Reply-to: Adam Di Carlo <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 02 Feb 2000 18:11:24 +0100." <[🔎] 20000202181124.G50448@enst.fr>
>I can't understand why everyone insists on keeping this MBR since
>its "features" serve strictly _NO_ useful purpose other than
>bypassing Lilo and BIOS security, so the argument that removing it
>would impair the system's ease of use is totally flawed.
We could explain in depth why we have additional flexibility when we
combine lilo and mbr. At I would have to ask Randolph to explain it.
I know that there are reasons but I'm not sure why offhand.
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>