Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Aug 2012 14:14 UTC, submitted by fran
Permalink for comment 533035
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-10-17
The multi-user concept is not the only way to provide security. An operating system is not inherently insecure because it does not provide multi-user support.
Here is an hypothetical operating system: It does not have a multi-user implementation. However, privileged operations can only be performed by passing security mechanisms like fingerprint or retina scans. Does that make it more insecure than a multi-user operating system?
Multi-user systems have their own issues. Think privilege escalation, confused deputy problem etc...
Computer security is a complex thing and there is no -one way- of dealing with it.