Privilege separation

[Dan Yefimov]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Logu wrote:

> 
> 
> > > In general it introduces more headaches and does not "solve" any real
> > > problems.
> > >
> > It's vain that you have taken 'solve' in quotes and believe that the patch
> > doesn't solve any problems. Imagine a little router that is booted from
> > diskette or ZIP drive. Every excessive byte of storage taken by an
> executable is
> > important. Using privilege separation in that system doesn't make much
> sense. So
> > the ability to configure out 'dead' code and reduce executable size is
> important
> > in such case. Also many people may believe this feature to be useful.
> >
> 
> If code size is your main issue rather than security, better option will be
> rsh.
> 
Wanna joke? This is nice one. :-/

> I do not understand why there is a runtime option not to use privilege
> separation. What if the previlege separation is made compulsary.
> 
Nothing must be imposed to anybody. This is the main principal of most 
countries' Constitutions on over the world. Having at least runtime option is 
better than having no option at all. And yet better would be having compile-time 
option to completely remove feature anyone dislike.
-- 

    Sincerely Your, Dan.