Re: X-windows security in Gnome
- From: <Jim Gettys hp com>
- To: Alan Cox <alan redhat com>
- Cc: Jim Gettys hp com, Brian Cameron Sun COM, otaylor redhat com, gnome-hackers gnome org
- Subject: Re: X-windows security in Gnome
- Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 08:33:33 -0700 (PDT)
What was daft about the compartmented mode security stuff was the extreme
of paranoia it was taken: things like worrying about N bit/second
back channel signalling paths, and stuff like that.
The security extension in X may in fact be just fine, and as I've
been thinking more about projectors and public use of facilities like that,
it is, at an elementary level, reasonable; just not the crazy extent the
U.S. government was pushing things in the early 1990's. One of the days
soon I'll spend a bit of time looking at the security extension...
- Jim
> Sender: gnome-private-members-admin gnome org
> From: Alan Cox <alan redhat com>
> Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 22:22:59 -0400 (EDT)
> To: Jim Gettys hp com
> Cc: alan redhat com (Alan Cox), Brian Cameron Sun COM, otaylor redhat com,
> gnome-hackers gnome org
> Subject: Re: X-windows security in Gnome
> -----
> > to applications) support for Kerb5 when installed with fall back to
> > magic-cookie; as I said, I've never delved into it. But the compartmented
> > mode security features always struck me as daft.
>
> When you have untrusted apps and secure data on the same screen they
> become really very important.
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-hackers mailing list
> gnome-hackers gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers
--
Jim Gettys
Cambridge Research Laboratory
HP Labs, Hewlett-Packard Company
Jim Gettys hp com
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]