[ILUG] [OT] Security permissions for passwd

[Philip Reynolds]

David Murphy's [drjolt+ilug at redbrick.dcu.ie] 33 lines of dribble included:
:>Quoting <NBBBIGEGHIGMPCNKHCECCEPNDKAA.kenn at bluetree.ie>
:>by Kenn Humborg <kenn at bluetree.ie>:
:>> > you don't even need a recovery disk.  and pw protecting lilo is pointless
:>> > since you can either use a recovery disk or just rip out the disk and
:>> > mount it elsewhere.
:>> > 
:>> > repeat:  must. have. physical. security. to. be. secure.
:>> 
:>> I disagree.  A locked case that's physically tied down with
:>> no floppy or CD drive could have LILO and single-user
:>> passwords and be secure.  (And a BIOS password...)
:>
:>Wouldn't the lock on the case count as physical security? Physical
:>security can be anything from a padlock to a vault.

Taking a guess that the point he was disagreeing with was that it's pointless
password protecting LiLo. 
On Kenn's point if you don't password protect LiLo, anyone with
physical access to your machine for about T (t being time it takes to reboot
plus 1 minute) minutes can have ur box backdoored. It could be by chance they
get in front of your box (not everyone carries bootdisks around with them, ok
well before last Saturday not everyone ;P) and riping the hard drive out
wouldn't be an option. It's narrowing down options, not a total preventative
security measure.

-- 
[---------
  Philip Reynolds                | Errors have occurred..
  Redbrick Systems Administrator | We won't tell you where or why.
  phil at redbrick.dcu.ie           | Lazy Programmers.
                                                    ---------------]