[comp.org.eff.talk] How secure should computers be?

mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) (06/18/91)

It has been claimed repeatedly here in the last few days that sysadmins
have a duty to make their computers as secure as possible.

Well, back in pre-UNIX days, computers _were_ secure, and serious
programmers (the kind of people who hang out here) didn't like it.
You couldn't see any files other than your own... you couldn't run
a process in the background... and so on.

The notorious "insecurity" of UNIX is _versatility_. 

I'm amused that the same kind of people who hated secure operating
systems when they had them, now claim operating systems should be
more secure.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Covington | Artificial Intelligence Programs
The University of Georgia  |  Athens, GA 30602   U.S.A.
-------------------------------------------------------

barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) (06/18/91)

In article <1991Jun18.044351.8369@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
>Well, back in pre-UNIX days, computers _were_ secure, and serious
>programmers (the kind of people who hang out here) didn't like it.
>You couldn't see any files other than your own... you couldn't run
>a process in the background... and so on.

You seem to have a severely limited idea of what existed before Unix.
Multics, probably the most secure general-purpose, commercial system that
ever existed, was hardly that limited.  You could see other users' files
if they allowed you to, you could run background jobs, etc.

>The notorious "insecurity" of UNIX is _versatility_. 

No, it's sloppiness.  It's true that implementing both security and
flexibility in the same system is hard.  It requires a decent amount of
careful design.  Extreme security was not a high priority of the Unix
designers (they were just throwing together a little OS for their personal
use in a cooperative research environment), and it's difficult to graft
good security onto an existing system.

>I'm amused that the same kind of people who hated secure operating
>systems when they had them, now claim operating systems should be
>more secure.

There are appropriate environments for both secure and insecure systems.
One of the original goals of Multics was that it be used by commercial
timesharing utilities; just as you don't want randoms to be able to tap
your phone, you wouldn't want them to be able to snoop in your private
files.  On the other hand, in a cooperative research environment, security
barriers between users are often just a pain in the neck.  But if the
research project is confidential, they'd still want to keep out intruders
(e.g. corporate spies).
-- 
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar

cschmidt@lynx.northeastern.edu (06/22/91)

> Well, back in pre-UNIX days, computers _were_ secure, and serious
> programmers (the kind of people who hang out here) didn't like it.
> You couldn't see any files other than your own... you couldn't run
> a process in the background... and so on.
>
> The notorious "insecurity" of UNIX is _versatility_.
>
> I'm amused that the same kind of people who hated secure operating
> systems when they had them, now claim operating systems should be
> more secure.

The message quoted above contains one of the many lies about Unix that
are responsible for its proliferation.  An operating system can offer
convenient resource sharing without being as insecure as Unix.  I
remember reading in early Unix release notes that Unix was designed
for a "benign environment".  The early Unix designers had different
requirements then.  To pretend that convenient resource sharing
requires lax security is to live in a make-believe world.  We
programmers and our clients deserve better.

Christopher Schmidt
cschmidt@lynx.northeastern.edu

gast@maui.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) (06/29/91)

In article <memo.1122425@lynx.northeastern.edu> cschmidt@lynx.northeastern.edu writes:
>> Well, back in pre-UNIX days, computers _were_ secure, and serious
>> programmers (the kind of people who hang out here) didn't like it.
>> You couldn't see any files other than your own... you couldn't run
>> a process in the background... and so on.

>> I'm amused that the same kind of people who hated secure operating
>> systems when they had them, now claim operating systems should be
>> more secure.

These other operating systems weren't secure either.  There were all
sorts of bugs and problems with them.  Same with all operating systems
today.

David