3 ms·
A lot of people are starting to realise that "secure" means "secure AGAINST the user".
by userbinator 2y ago
A lot of people are starting to realise that "secure" means "secure AGAINST the user".
- tptacek 2y agoY... yes? That has always been the premise of Unix systems security?
- userbinator 2y agoNot if the user is the one who actually owns the machine.
- tptacek 2y agoYes, even then. Every sandboxing scheme ever devised has the same premise. That's why tools like Firejail were written. DRM/anticheat and anti-rootkit countermeasures are more or less the same technology.
- dns_snek 2y agoWhat GP obviously meant was "secure against the [rightful owner & user of the system]". That's never been the premise of *nix system security where the owner can ultimately do anything, no matter how self-destructive it is. You're changing the semantic definition of "user" to mean "secure against the [restricted user account]" and thus mocking an argument that was never made. Guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.