Re: Linux, BSD, and Unix are fundamentally insecure.
From: Dr. Richard E. Hawkins (hawk_at_slytherin.ds.psu.edu)
Date: 09/13/04
- Next message: Per Hedeland: "Re: Question about "last""
- Previous message: Dave Uhring: "Re: named root NS error"
- In reply to: Thomas Schweikle: "Re: Linux, BSD, and Unix are fundamentally insecure."
- Next in thread: Dariusz Kuliński / TaKeDa: "Re: Linux, BSD, and Unix are fundamentally insecure."
- Reply: Dariusz Kuliński / TaKeDa: "Re: Linux, BSD, and Unix are fundamentally insecure."
- Reply: Richard Steiner: "Re: Linux, BSD, and Unix are fundamentally insecure."
- Reply: Thomas Schweikle: "Re: Linux, BSD, and Unix are fundamentally insecure."
- Reply: David Magda: "Re: Linux, BSD, and Unix are fundamentally insecure."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:35:19 +0000 (UTC)
In article <ci02rs.2v4.1@maple.vr-web.de>,
Thomas Schweikle <tps@vr-web.de> wrote:
>Mike Cox wrote:
>>
>> * Because in XP and possibly later service packs in win2k the
>> password itself is used to encrypt the keys needed for EFS.
>> * Sorry, there is no way to recover the files once the password
>> has been reset. "
>>
>> http://home.eunet.no/~pnordahl/ntpasswd/
>
>This is correct. Reseting the password makes these Volumes
>inaccessible.
You've *got* to be kidding me. The entire file system is bound to a
single password which *should* be changed on a regular basis?
So when you change it, do you have to pray that the system won't crash
before it finishes rewriting the entire filesystem???
>> Windows IS secure at the console. Sometimes data is valuable that you
>> don't want someone to be able to get into your machine even if they
>> are at the console. Windows is the solution for that type of
>> situation.
>No. It is not. Except you put the system into a save. Windows NT was
>once certified for C1 security. All newer Windows versions are not.
It wasn't NT in general, but a very specifically configured NT.
hawk
-- Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign dochawk@psu.edu 111 Hiller (814) 375-4846 \ / against HTML mail These opinions will not be those of X and postings. Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \
- Next message: Per Hedeland: "Re: Question about "last""
- Previous message: Dave Uhring: "Re: named root NS error"
- In reply to: Thomas Schweikle: "Re: Linux, BSD, and Unix are fundamentally insecure."
- Next in thread: Dariusz Kuliński / TaKeDa: "Re: Linux, BSD, and Unix are fundamentally insecure."
- Reply: Dariusz Kuliński / TaKeDa: "Re: Linux, BSD, and Unix are fundamentally insecure."
- Reply: Richard Steiner: "Re: Linux, BSD, and Unix are fundamentally insecure."
- Reply: Thomas Schweikle: "Re: Linux, BSD, and Unix are fundamentally insecure."
- Reply: David Magda: "Re: Linux, BSD, and Unix are fundamentally insecure."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|