On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Scott Francis wrote: On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 10:47:30AM -0800, matt@snark.net said:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Scott Francis wrote:
He argued instead that OSes should be redesigned to implement the principle of least privilege from the ground up, down to the architecture they run on.
[...]
The problem there is the same as with windowsupdate - if one can spoof the central authority, one instantly gains unrestricted access to not one, but myriad computers.
[...]
So far, the closest thing I've seen to this concept is the ssh administrative host model: adminhost:~root/.ssh/id_dsa.pub is copied to every targethost:~root/.ssh/authorized_keys2, such that commands can be performed network-wide from a single station.
Do you even read what you write? How does a host with root access to an entire set of hosts exemplify the least privilege principle?
Your selections from my post managed to obscure the fact that I was making more than one point. I did _not_ state that the ssh key mgmt system outlined above exemplifies least privilege. I was merely making a comparison between that model and the topic under discussion, central administrative/authenticating authorities. So when windowsupdate does it, its a problem, because they aren't using ssh keys? I'm just confused, as they both seem to represent the same model in your discussion, however one is a "problem" and the other is a sugegsted practice. Is it because windowsupdate requres explicit action on each client machine to operate? I'm still missing whatever point you were trying to make in your original post. Please do not put words into my mouth. I'm not. I'm simply quoting ones coming from it. matto --mghali@snark.net------------------------------------------<darwin>< Flowers on the razor wire/I know you're here/We are few/And far between/I was thinking about her skin/Love is a many splintered thing/Don't be afraid now/Just walk on in. #include <disclaim.h>