View Single Post
Old 24 March 2015, 10:01   #35
Registered User

Megol's Avatar
Join Date: May 2014
Location: inside the emulator
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag View Post
but it would just be the same thing with different terminology. The implementation details would be the same. Call them "modes" instead of "users" or whatever, "multi-user" doesn't require that the different accounts actually belong to different people. Of course that is an obvious and natural use of the technology.
I'm trying to point out that multi-user support is orthogonal to protection and security. While individual user accounts can be used to track rights and resources it isn't the only (or IMHO best) way to do it.
Or in other words: the problem isn't the terminology, the problem is the semantics.

Originally Posted by kolla View Post
Multi-user support, as in different "owners" of processes and whatever, is a consequence - it's just a semantic abstraction away from any kind of security model.
No for some forms of security models. Which is my point.

So to what do you grant capabilities? To individual binaries? To some sort of an abstract entitity, like a "user"?
What to grant capabilities? I'd call it a protection domain, it is a commonly used name for that. No, there is no need to link a user account to it.

Please name an operating system that is considered secure and yet has no concept of "users".
That could be hard. Partially because multi-user support is useful on its own and a sufficiently sophisticated OS will implement it.

I'm just trying to point out that one doesn't _have_ to copy the Unix model to have protection and security, don't know why that is such an unpopular opinion...

Last edited by TCD; 24 March 2015 at 10:26. Reason: Back-to-back posts merged.
Megol is offline  
Page generated in 0.05143 seconds with 9 queries