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

On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 10:34:03AM +0800, Rogelio M.Serrano Jr. wrote:
> >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?

X did put security in the protocol. This is why pretty much nobody
*uses* it.

> How should a security policy 
> implemented with uid authentication then?

List of acceptable uids, some of which can modify the list. That's all
you need to build whatever you want in an external layer.

> Is there a super user?

No.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAq2etlpK98RSteX8RAlq2AJ9RelKzsi10iRB7IlUakFezvk3flwCeMuH4
J5VDACloPt6NwTEMUk/NMSY=
=ISUF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----