From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Nov 1 3: 3: 7 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from atkielski.com (atkielski.com [161.58.232.69]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D3C237B403 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2001 03:03:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from contactdish (ASt-Lambert-101-2-1-14.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.251.59.14]) by atkielski.com (8.11.6) id fA1B2gR65989; Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:02:42 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <006b01c162c4$c6597cb0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> From: "Anthony Atkielski" To: "FreeBSD Questions" References: <005a01c161ed$a19933c0$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011101165340.02192a40@pop.ozemail.com.au> <005301c162bd$59ac2740$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <006e01c162bf$8c5d87e0$0b64a8c0@becca> Subject: Re: Tiny starter configuration for FreeBSD Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:03:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Rob writes: > And the Windows ones are not? Which version of Windows? None of the versions descended from MS-DOS has any real security, nor does any such version pretend to have any security; they are single-user systems, after all. Windows NT/2000, on the other hand, has excellent security, and is designed as a multiuser system. > Only partly true. Root is all powerful, but so > is any member of the WinNT/2k Administrator group. Not true. The Administrator group has a certain set of privileges (just about all privileges, actually, with a handful of exceptions), and so do all other groups. It is possible to define any number of groups with any desired set of privileges. > How much more granular do you want? The ability to assign permissions by user is very important. That is, user A must be able to read and write, user B must be able to execute only, and so on. > By whom? By everyone who needs real security. > What is it's replacement? Windows NT provides much better security. > If you are referring to MVS (IIRC this was brought > up earlier in this thread) ... No. I was referring to Multics, one of the most secure operating systems ever designed, and a direct ancestor of UNIX (in fact, UNIX is a play on words, as UNIX was a simplified implementation of many Multics-like principles). Multics had extraordinary security, not only for its time, but even for the present day. It was far more secure than Windows NT, for example, and Windows NT is far more secure than UNIX. (And UNIX in turn is far more secure than MS-DOS or single-user Windows systems, or the Mac.) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message