Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 5th Mar 2009 13:27 UTC
Windows For Windows 7, Microsoft has made some changes to User Account Control to counter the criticism that UAC was too intrusive. It didn't take long before several holes were poked in Windows 7's default UAC settings, and now one is left to wonder: is it wise to sacrifice security for (perceived?) usability? Ars has an editorial that deals with this question.
Thread beginning with comment 351881
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Security OR usability?
by mkone on Thu 5th Mar 2009 21:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Security OR usability?"
mkone
Member since:
2006-03-14

"I mean, the UNIX-style rights management has had no major changes since UNIX was born. And it is both secure AND usable.


The idea of root is inherently insecure, because if that is compromised, everything is compromised. Because of that, your system is as secure as the least secure process running as root on a UNIX machine. The upside is that this allows for something that is extremely simple to wrap your head around.

ACLs allow a far more fine grained approach to security...
"

On any computer system, there is going to be at least one user who is all powerful. That is unavoidable. The only thing ACLs give you is the ability to give different permissions to different users. The granularity is good. But you can't knock UNIX for having root. And besides, you do get ACLs with UNIX nowadays anyway, at least you do in Linux. If you need to.

Reply Parent Score: 2

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Nothing should ever run as that user though. With ACLs it is alot easier to do that then with a DAC system

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

No, you can use SELinux to explicitly define what root can do.

Reply Parent Score: 1