Re: [POSSIBLE GRAVE SECURITY HOLD]
- To: Thierry Laronde <thierry.laronde@polynum.com>
- Cc: Pierre Beyssac <beyssac@enst.fr>, Ruud de Rooij <ruud@ruud.org>, Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@cupid.suninternet.com>, Samuel Tardieu <sam@debian.org>, Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com>, "Huneycutt, Doug" <doug.huneycutt@lmco.com>, 56821@bugs.debian.org, pb@enst.fr, quinot@enst.fr, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: [POSSIBLE GRAVE SECURITY HOLD]
- From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
- Date: 02 Feb 2000 11:10:17 -0600
- Message-id: <87r9evy1hi.fsf@erwin.complete.org>
- In-reply-to: Thierry Laronde's message of "Wed, 2 Feb 2000 18:03:20 +0100"
- References: <2000-02-02-11-38-12+trackit+sam@debian.org> <389823E6.37B56639@cupid.suninternet.com> <20000202045337.A10828@debian.org> <87og9zd9wx.fsf@hobbes.home.ruud.org> <20000202145212.S99806@enst.fr> <87n1pjk3md.fsf@erwin.complete.org> <20000202180320.A772@polynum.com>
Thierry Laronde <thierry.laronde@polynum.com> writes:
> > Do people also know that you have to padlock your computer's case
> > shut? That you have to password-protect the BIOS? That you have to
> > password-protect LILO? None of these have an obvious prompt, and on
> > some computers may require physical case modifications.
>
> All that you have cited are *NOT* operating system issues. The BIOS is not
> Debian, the hardware is not Debian, etc...
Well, if LILO is not an OS issue, why is MBR?
> What is asked for is, at least, *DOCUMENTATION*.
And as numerous people, including myself, have pointed out, it already
exists and explains the situation in a sufficient manner.
>
> Let me remind... I have read that somewhere... Perhaps you can tell :
>
> "WE WON'T HIDE PROBLEMS"
I'm sorry, is there a problem somehwere?
--
John Goerzen Linux, Unix consulting & programming jgoerzen@complete.org |
Developer, Debian GNU/Linux (Free powerful OS upgrade) www.debian.org |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The 322,495th digit of pi is 2.
Reply to: