Re: [Xen-users] Re: XCP: Insecure Distro ?

[Randy Katz <rkatz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Riki, if you hack my TV I will call XCP my "appliance"!

On 5/10/2011 3:05 PM, riki wrote:
> On 05/10/2011 10:46 PM, A Cold Penguin wrote:
> > > Sorry I wasn't completely clear.
> > > The reason why the use of /etc/passwd vs /etc/shadow is
> > > non-consequential is that XCP is a single user machine where all
> > > access is via UID 0.
> > > As such UNIX file permissions are effectively useless. For all intents
> > > and purposes 700 = 777 if you are always root and everything is owned
> > > by root yes?
> > ....
> > > Does this further clarify why changing to /etc/shadow would be of no
> > > consequence?
> >
> > No, if anything, it makes even less sense. If all the daemons are 
> > running as root, then the excuse that was put forward, that using 
> > shadow would stop the necessary daemons from being able to perform 
> > their synchronisation properly, is moot.
> > In the situation I am talking about here, root is often not used as a 
> > super-user. Although it would be understood that in the requirement 
> > of XCP this might be bypassed, the easy-access by keeping the 
> > password in a world-readable file would not be acceptable.
> Is it possible to stop looking at the XCP as the unix-like 
> distribution based on centos linux and start to look at it as a 
> appliance. Are you guys evaluationg your microwave oven, fridge, NAS, 
> set-top box and your smart TV?
> r.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users