Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   Resetting the root password from local console is not a security hole.
> > It's regular maintenance. It's by design.

> Possibly, depending on how you think about it.  It certainly makes for 
> insecure personal desktop computers in a corporate environment, for 
> example.

  I was mainly talking from the point of view of the owner of the
computer, which is naturally also its administrator.

  There are certain things you just *must* be able to do to the computer
as an administrator. The most typical example would be booting it (which,
if it was possible to do remotely by anyone without permission, would be
considered a huge security hole).

  It would, quite naturally, not make too much sense that if you forgot
the root password, you would be completely stuck and the computer would
become completely unmaintainable. There must, of course, be some way of
resetting the root password (given that you have direct physical access
to the computer). It's just common sense.

  You could, of course, make a computer somewhat "secure" by disabling
a bunch of things (such as being able to boot in single user mode and
booting from a CD) and setting a bios password. However, it wouldn't make
too much sense to do this to your own computer because if you ever forget
that root password, it would be quite bothersome to get your computer back.

> >   There's no such a thing as security if you have physical access to the
> > computer. 

> Sure there is. Otherwise, why would anyone build encrypting disk 
> drivers, mandatory access control, etc?

  Security of the data is not the same as security of the system.
If someone can hack into your computer and delete all your encrypted
files (or worse, replace them with something else without you noticing
for a long time, perhaps messing up your backups), I wouldn't call that
security.

  Accounts, access control, etc. are only good for remote access.
If someone has direct access to your computer, they serve only as a
deterrent for the novice and a slowdown for the expert. There's little
stopping the user from eg. booting from a linux installation disk and
wiping out the contents of the HDs.

  (That doesn't mean that accounts couldn't be handy even if the computer
is used by more than one person. They can be very handy eg. for a computer
used by the entire family, with each member having their own accounts. It
makes maintenance easier and accidents less catastrophical.)

> > It doesn't matter which OS you are using. 

> This would be factually incorrect also, unless you believe ...

  You mean some OS can stop someone from booting from a CD and wiping
the HDs, for example?

> > Heck, you can take
> > a sledgehammer and bring down the system with it.

> ... counts as "insecure."

  Well, it is. I count a system which can be brought down by anyone
without permission as being insecure. You can only try to stop that
being done remotely, but if someone has physical access to your
computer, no such luck.

> >   The point in security is whether the system can be hacked remotely.

> I think you're overgeneralizing.  I think it's because security isn't a 
> binary property of a system.

  I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration:

  If someone has direct physical access to the computer, it is insecure.
Remote access can be made much more secure.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message