home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
- Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!decuac!ufp.dco.dec.com!murphy
- From: murphy@ufp.dco.dec.com (Rick Murphy)
- Subject: RE: Getting rid of SMB_SECURITY once and for all ?
- Message-ID: <1992Dec30.041846.5354@decuac.dec.com>
- Lines: 27
- Sender: murphy@gorn.enet.dec.com (Rick Murphy)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: server.dco.dec.com
- Reply-To: murphy@ufp.dco.dec.com
- Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Greenbelt MD
- X-Newsreader: mxrn 6.17-25
- References: <00965c66.12618940.15752@elros.stg.trw.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:18:46 GMT
-
-
- In article <00965c66.12618940.15752@elros.stg.trw.com>,
- powers@ELROS.STG.TRW.COM writes:
- |>The gossip is that, if you are sloppy, and if I wanted to, I could destroy
- |>your X-windows/DECwindows world in Australia from right here in my
- |>home in southern California U.S.A. easy as pie.
- |>
- |>To be sure, the X-windows flaws being discussed are Eunuchs-based, but
- |>then again DECwindows is also X-windows under another name. So, maybe the
- |>risk goes right across operating systems. Maybe not. Is convenience worth
- |>the risk? Not on my system. I think I'll just delete my own files myself
- |>in my own good time, thank you.
-
- The "default" X Window System security scheme on UNIX systems is host-based
- only; anyone logged in to your workstation has access to the display.
- On VMS, the authorization information includes the username of the user.
- Thus, there aren't the same security risks - unless you're sharing your
- password :-)
-
- -Rick
-
- --
- Rick Murphy, WA1SPT/4 Washington Open Systems Resource Center
- Domain: murphy@dco.dec.com -or- murphy@burfle.enet.dec.com
- Bang: decwrl!burfle.enet!murphy "Somewhere between 30 and Death" -
- Ding: (301) 918-5883 bumper sticker.
- Disclaimer: This nonsense came from an AI program written in TECO. Ignore it.
-