3 ms·
Ignoring the fact that this article suffers from severe lack of expertise (~"linux (the kernel) suffered from heartbleed"): The article is playing extreme posit
by jlg23 11y ago
Ignoring the fact that this article suffers from severe lack of expertise (~"linux (the kernel) suffered from heartbleed"): The article is playing extreme positions against each other. Yes, when I am in charge of a company's security, I'd want my users to require root access (i.e. my blessing) when they want to join unknown networks - no, I would not want my parents to require my help when they want to connect to a wireless network at an airport when waiting for their flight into their holidays.
A pragmatic solution to this is a configurable policy that is determined at boot time (and immutable ever after). There is no need to discuss with the aim to reach an agreement - requirements differ and for a lot of use-cases "I don't care" is just as OK as "no fscking way" is for others.
- Sanddancer 11y agoThat sounds a lot like the securelevel [1] features the BSDs have. A coarse-grained system that locks a system down with progressively stronger and stronger controls. There have been occasional discussions on the kernel mailing list on adding such a feature, but at the moment, Linus prefers the capabilities system. A shame, really, because having something to disable activities that people wouldn't do in a production system would be useful in a lot of circumstances. [1] http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man7/securelevel.7?query=securelevel&sec=7 http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man7/...
- silly1 11y agoSecurelevel in linux has never had a good time.. its also not working so well with kexec at the moment, I think its fix in the 4.x series though.