NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/comp/sys/novell/9777

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-23 | 1.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!crdgw1!newsun!donp
From: [e-mail] (don provan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.novell
Subject: Re: Hack.exe
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:59:56 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (The Netnews Manager)
Organization: Novell, Inc., San Jose, California
Lines: 26
Nntp-Posting-Host: na.sjf.novell.com

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Heston) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (don provan) writes:
>The problem that arises here is: what do you do when it's *necessary*
>to break in?

Yes, this is an important consideration, just as it is for safes and
locked doors.  I doubt many people would buy a safe that had a
"hidden" way to open the safe without the combination, though, and i
don't think many people buying NetWare would want similar features in
NetWare.  (Although i suppose we should ask safe owners or NetWare
administrators that have had to break in about that...)

>There are limits to physical security; however, a locked room will
>deter the overwhelming majority of attacks.

Yes, this is a really good point, and i'm sorry my post sort of
sounded like a locked room wasn't still a good idea.  When i said i
"wasn't worried" about security once it had gotten to the physical
stage, i was thinking as a Novell developer: given that hardware
products can be purchased which, when properly installed, will load
NetWare without any opportunity for unauthorized control, then there's
nothing else NetWare can do on that front.  That doesn't mean physical
security isn't useful and important, although it's important to
keep in mind that no security is absolute.
                        don provan
                        [e-mail]