Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
>>>>>> On 03 Apr 2003 09:08:33 +0200, Ketil Malde ("Ketil") writes:
> Ketil> More specific question: how is security achieved, when
> everything's Ketil> open, and communciation is done through
> unrestricted, shared objects? Ketil> The reasons given doesn't sound
> very convincing, looking from a Ketil> malicious user perspective.
>
> It's a single-user system and there is no protecting the user from
> himself, if he decides to be self-malicious.
System protections[1] aren't there for users. They are there to protect
various resources from *programs*. Users may or may not be somewhere
behind some program that happened to call a chain of dozen others, but
that has nothing to do with things. Neither has this hypothetical
creature's intentions. It's all about programs for any system.
[1] No, you never protect. You just allow. What is not allowed
(=implemented) is impossible. There is no concept "protect".
|