[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SSH revised

From: Marcus Brinkmann
Subject: Re: SSH revised
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:34:54 +0200
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.7 (Sanjō) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.4 (i486-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)

At Tue, 28 Mar 2006 09:32:28 +0200,
Christian Helmuth <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 09:45:45PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > > I think these do not match with MAC-alike system policies. If an
> > > administrator/owner wants to restrict the options a specific user has to
> > > enter the system via SSH, there must remain a small "system" ssh server
> > > part. An example could be the limitiaton to SSH2.
> > 
> > There are two responses to that.  The first is: Why would an
> > administrator want to do that?  And the second is: Given the answer to
> > the first question, is this something that we want to support?
> My assumptions was that any administrator (or platform owner or you) wants
> complete control over possible entry points into his server.

That may be.  And they will have it, because the administrator and
machine owner are the parties who install the hardware.  However, that
does not mean we need to give them control over every aspect at every
protocol layer.

> > There are three possible outcomes to this: (1) there is no consistent
> > argument why the admin would want to do that, or (2) there is a
> > consistent argument, but it is in conflict with ideological
> > assumptions we make, or (3) there is a consistent answer, and it does
> > not conflict with our ideological assumptions.
> > 
> > Only if the result is (3) it is worth considering to support this.
> > And even then it may be rejected because of cost-benefit analysis or
> > other factors.
> Is the bottom line of this a) you don't care about MAC or b) HURD does not
> care about MAC? IMO Mandatory Access Control is something somebody who
> operates a server really wants...

I care about user freedom.  My understanding of the term MAC does not
have anything to do with use of specific protocols to log on to the
machine remotely.  Maybe if you explain how you understand the term
MAC here, and why you think that the suggested mechanism violates it,
I can respond to that.

And again:  That somebody wants something is not a sufficient reason
to do it (in fact, not even a necessary reason).


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]