Re: Netowrk connectivity (was: segfault on font ...)

On 2004-05-19 09:22:25 +0800 Andrew Suffield <[email protected]> 
wrote:

> On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 09:15:39AM -0400, Timothy C. Brown wrote:
>> When you say "UNIX domain socket" I assume you are talking about an 
>> AF_UNIX
>> socket,
> 
> It's a PF_UNIX socket. AF_UNIX is the type of their address. The fact
> that they have the same numeric value on many platforms doesn't make
> them interchangeable.
> 
>> SSH doesn't forward these sockets, it creates an
>> Xauthority file and forwards the connection over TCP (i'm sure you 
>> know all
>> this already - i'm typing it for posterity, for those of us who 
>> don't know
>> it).
> 
> The above paragraph is wrong in every relevant particular. Every ssh
> server I can think of can forward X11 using unix domain sockets. The
> clients obviously can do as they please.
> 
> [Skip the lengthly discussion of PF_INET sockets; suffice it to say
> that this is an SEP]
> 
>> Anyway - that was my digression.  Using TCP should be a possibility; 
>> let
>> us not ignore it because it is "insecure", when realistically *some* 
>> security
>> *must* be implemented in Y, beyond what Xauthority generally 
>> provides.
>> Session cookies are at least a good idea and the client should be 
>> smart
>> enough to re-establish a session (or the server, in the appropriate 
>> cases).
> 
> I have to wonder what you think .Xauthority does if not precisely
> this, at least with the MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE-1 mechanism (some are
> considerably more sophisticated, like MIT-KERBEROS-5). It would
> provide a perfectly adequete security scheme.
> 
> However, this need not be implemented in Y, should not be, and
> probably *will* not be; it's completely the wrong way to go about it,
> from the perspectives of security, performance, and
> usability. Xsecurity mechanisms other than MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE-1 are
> almost never used, and even that is overkill for the scenarios in
> which it is used. UID-based authentication over unix domain sockets
> should be all we ever need in the server.
> 

Is that why X never put security in the protocol? Is SSH the oinly 
secure network transport available? How should a security policy 
implemented with uid authentication then? Is there a super user?