From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1Kaxx3-0004ur-Sb for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:23:37 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Kaxx2-0004uk-HY for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:23:36 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Kaxx2-0004uW-5z for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:23:36 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41450 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Kaxx1-0004uS-Ty for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:23:35 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.154]:31813) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Kaxx1-0003ef-8d for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:23:35 -0400 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id l26so254127fgb.30 for ; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:23:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=taLjaqON626YhlGS+fOlZQmC1nOFsRYans0mmflXFSM=; b=DUPwqB3D4JkwSgTMd9KZkoRKA66TaCMujZt/0sJxcN3CpHXNKjm/gM5E2UsMIWAJEd bE7j1HK8oKzrrpu0bstAVJTxYJYNBSBSziRubgnbwymdDdrzpWdDH7nDXe/Sjxu2tKgt rUxRLG671ueL1RvZqswm9xT249tkEUicBftU4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=IBpJ8hONaDoDy29IQTHLbIyrtBKZW2f1Sh5SnrCs3xXb9RElBWAfnw5osSAWhbDTD1 VZFvwoVE/hUXTyrb6tBrIQLriS+Yalcdp5V1pI6FcN5FhR7BIG8tc6OBvgsViEG9nJGU zw5jd5lNI4pIxm7WPRjitYDk1fxF4j2N/RXBs= Received: by 10.86.99.9 with SMTP id w9mr6943606fgb.70.1220469814215; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:23:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.15? ( [83.77.145.184]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 4sm10255853fge.8.2008.09.03.12.23.31 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:23:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <48BEE431.8070105@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:23:29 +0200 From: phcoder User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080724) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: The development of GRUB 2 References: <48BE5DE9.4090302@gmail.com> <20080903103654.GC29762@thorin> <48BE838E.9090204@gmail.com> <48BEC078.7030006@nic.fi> <48BEC6AD.5040305@gmail.com> <48BECE1A.1070406@nic.fi> <48BED931.2010208@gmail.com> <48BEE06D.20202@nic.fi> In-Reply-To: <48BEE06D.20202@nic.fi> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Subject: Re: [RFC] Boot parameters and geometrical stability X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:23:36 -0000 Vesa Jääskeläinen wrote: > phcoder wrote: >> Yes it is, but in my opinion price is too high (shame ubuntu uses this >> solution). It's somewhat similar to some solutions found in windows when >> for user convenience they open a big gate for the hackers (e.g. all >> users by default are administrators in winxp) > > Well... That is your opinion. I acknowledge that it opens another door > for local hacker. But if you are able to do that, then you can do some > other actions that are much more fatal... If attacker is unable to open computer, bios is under password, boots only from HD and grub is password-protected than I don't see which other action can lead to the same result (complete control of computer). > > But the gain can still supersede the security need. Its kinda same thing > that you are required to change your password monthly. People start > putting those on stickers and then the game is lost anyway. > This is eternal problem of security and its cost (see B.Schneier Beyond Fear). If someone find this compromise of security OK on his computer then fine. Just the user has at least to be warned about security risks it represents and have an alternative. I think a WARNING with description of the problem with a promt after it and possibility to do it otherwise (with hardware path or entering the disk manually) should be enough. Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko