Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 11:34:00 -0600 (CST) From: Michael Borowiec <mikebo@Mcs.Net> To: SteveFriedrich@Hot-Shot.com Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Securing the FreeBSD console Message-ID: <199812091734.LAA05725@Mars.mcs.net> In-Reply-To: <199812091715.MAA32666@laker.net> from "Steve Friedrich" at Dec 9, 98 12:12:51 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Just my two cents... > I think it's funny your people are *horrified* by this situation, yet > they have implemented absolutely NO physical security at all. This is > really quite absurd, because NO PC is secure if I have physical access. > First of all, in larger companies, development engineers are rarely responsible for plant security - and the plant security people are not responsible for computer security. So it falls to the UNIX admin... It's still a problem, even though you think it's absurd. Of course, physical access is everything. That's fundamental... However, xlock is SUPPOSED to provide a modicum of security. Otherwise it's just a screen saver, and then what's the point of it requiring a password?! My point is simply this: If xlock will not provide the security that reasonable people have come to expect, due to keyboard escapes in underlying systems, those HOLES should be documented. Not a lot to ask... Later, - Mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199812091734.LAA05725>