[350] in linux-security and linux-alert archive
Re: console security (was Re: problem with selection)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Malcolm Beattie)
Wed Sep 6 01:11:26 1995
From: Malcolm Beattie <mbeattie@sable.ox.ac.uk>
To: kjh@seas.smu.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson)
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 09:43:34 +0000 (BST)
Cc: linux-security@tarsier.cv.nrao.edu
In-Reply-To: <m0soqfY-000TqAC@seas.smu.edu> from "Kenneth J. Hendrickson" at Sep 2, 95 06:23:27 am
Kenneth J. Hendrickson writes:
>
> Zygo Blaxell writes:
> >Console security really sucks on Linux.
>
> If anybody is sitting at the console they can do anything they want on
> any of the virtual console terminals anyway. In addition, there can be
> no security once access to physical hardware is possible.
>
> Why put effort into fixing what can't be fixed?
Physical access to keyboard and display does not necessarily mean
physical access to the machine itself. Some colleges here arrange
for their Linux servers to be locked in a cupboard with only the
display and keyboard cables sticking out.
--Malcolm
--
Malcolm Beattie <mbeattie@sable.ox.ac.uk>
Unix Systems Programmer
Oxford University Computing Services
[Mod: Let's try not to diverge off too far into the realm of how to make
PC's physically secure; that's sort of outside the focus of
Linux-specific security (though I admit that it is a valid issue for
Linux). Discussions on how to improve console security and the like,
assuming some sort of existing physical security such as the
"locked-away" systems mentioned above, are more appropriate IMHO.
--Jeff.]
