lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Jul]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: disk-destroyer.c
    On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Myrddin Emrys wrote:

    > It's cement for one hole that you know exists... what about a dozen others
    > you don't? There's probably two dozen documented other places where you can
    > fry some subsystem or another. Protecting the system against a malicious
    > root is an exercise in futility. No matter what you do, how you guard the
    > system, root can bypass it. This is by design, as you well know. That is how
    > Linux (and most *nix) works.

    Let me try to understand what you're saying...
    It is established that a system's interface allows programs to
    physically destroy a disk drive, without providing any benefit
    whatsoever. However, since it's possible to fry other hardware,
    too, why bother with this problem???

    The fact of the matter is, that it is wrong for a program to
    destroy hardware. It is the kernel's job to ensure that it
    can't. It is pure laziness to ignore the issue.

    My feeling is that we should try to avoid all possible ways of
    accidentally or maliciously breaking parts. We can start out
    by fixing the IDE subsystem, and then go on to others. Just
    because other stuff is broken, too, doesn't mean that we should
    give up.


    ----------------------------------------------
    Andrew McNabb
    Argus Systems Group
    amcnabb@argus-systems.com
    ----------------------------------------------


    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:3.514 / U:0.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site