Hello, On Nov 3 11:50 Claudio Freire wrote (excerpt):
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Johannes Meixner
wrote: I wonder if on an usual end-user system (i.e. on a system where the Adobe Flash Player normally is used) there is in practice a real difference when malware runs as "the user" versus when it runs as "root"?
I think the real value on a computer is user data (like private data, in particular private secrets) and not system data like programs or config files because the latter can relatively easily be recreated (re-install from scratch if the system got corrupted).
Perhaps when malware runs as the user it could be even worse than when malware runs as root because when malware runs as the user it might be even easier to steal private user data under certain circumstances?
When someone runs as root it can compromise the whole system,
Really in any case? Of course on a system with only traditional file access permissions root can read all files because for root traditional file access permissions are not tested. But I wonder if there is perhaps nowadays advanced stuff which could protect user data even from root access?
whereas something that runs as a user can only compromise the user.
My argument is that "only compromise the user" is in practice on an usual end-user system the worst case. Kind Regards Johannes Meixner -- SUSE LINUX GmbH - GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton - HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org