On 05/11/09 13:39, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Wednesday 04 November 2009 10:30:42 Basil Chupin wrote:
So, the security in Linux is NOT what, for many years, I have believed it to be.
I, and thousands of others, have been duped for all this time.
huh? Every linux user knows that when he downloads an executable program, he has to do "chmod u+x" on it before he can execute it.
Until just now, I have never been told to do this :-) .
At no point in this advice is it said they have to su to root first. In file managers, the interface allows you to change permissions on files to your heart's content.
Ce? "To [one's] heart's content"? Surely you mean if you are the owner of the file. I know that Dolphin allows you to alter the permissions (using Advance Permissions) even on files owned by root -- but this is only a delusion because the changes are not implemented.
So if by "duped" you mean "told repeatedly, on mailing lists and in documentation", then yes, you have been duped
So basically you are saying that when I was told, and I have told many other people same, that Linux was secure and unhackable, unlike our "friend", that Linux is just as vulnerable to all sorts of hank-panky if someone sat down and tried to exploit the sort of vulnerabilities mentioned here? OK, I know about the method of wiping out the root's existing password and creating a new password and therefore be able to access all the system but this is not what we are talking about here, are we? The bottom line, then, is that what the OP raised about Adobe Flash is an exploitable feature in Linux, right? BC -- The chief cause of problems is solutions. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org