On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 11:50 -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote: > How does this compromise security when you're the only member of your > private group? And if you are not? Why should you? Well someone simply might not want to use UPG? Or might use the users or staff group? Or do "we" now basically force everybody to use UPG? Or do we patch ssh to detect whether it runs in an UPG/non-UPG environment? I really wonder whether such a patch would be merged upstream... > Setting any permission bit on any file on any computer won't protect you > from social engineering, so I fail to see where you're going with your > argument. I'm really speechless... Well then,.. move on.... > 581919 was created, because the write bit should be set on the ~/.ssh/ > directory, and contents, Wonder if upstream agrees.... > seeing as though Debian is a UPG-based > operating system. Is it? Again,... speechless... But I guess it improves the "overall experience"... if we force users in one give corset... .oO(Perhaps we should drop KDE, and declare Debian to be GNOME-only-based) Chris.
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature