What 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 ca

What 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.