Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 143

Thread: Tuxera Claims NTFS Is The Fastest File-System For Linux

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    113

    Default

    great news , it s cool to have so high performances . once again linux fails , but let s hope the driver will be added to kernel .

  2. #32
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by movieman View Post
    LOL.

    Unix filesystems have had ACL support for years and Linux has for about a decade. Practically no-one uses them because they're so easy to screw up in a manner which will make your system pretty much impossible to fix. If I remember correctly, the Unix-style file permissions were created precisely to eliminate the hassle of dealing with ACLs on older operating systems.

    BTW, you do realise that NTFS was 'invented in the previous century', right? As were ACLs?
    It's true, ACLs are harder. Then again, they usually aren't really needed in a single user setup. Thankfully, they degrade to basically Unix-style permissions when you only have one user (plus admin).

    We used ACLs with great success at my old employer (on Linux). So it can be done and without much fuss. We had a single brown bag lunch on the topic and most everybody was fine after that.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by siride View Post
    What is this "smoke and mirrors" game that you are talking about? I mean in particular, not some vague accusation about NTFS. What about its security model is "smoke and mirrors"? And don't claim that the fact that pre-Vista Windows tended to have home users run as admin, or that Vista and later have UAC to allow elevation necessary to operate on files the user doesn't have permissions on. That's a shell, user policy thing, not an issue with NTFS.
    Well the most obvious example of it is when they took away the "cancel" button that gave anybody the ability to login as admin (even if they don't have a username and password). You remember that cancel button? It asks for username and password, you press "cancel" and you're admin? Its basically the same way throughout.

    The problem is that security needs to be built THROUGH, not just layered on top. Its the reason why banks don't just lock the front door, but also have a vault, cameras, and security guards.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    Well the most obvious example of it is when they took away the "cancel" button that gave anybody the ability to login as admin (even if they don't have a username and password). You remember that cancel button? It asks for username and password, you press "cancel" and you're admin? Its basically the same way throughout.

    The problem is that security needs to be built THROUGH, not just layered on top. Its the reason why banks don't just lock the front door, but also have a vault, cameras, and security guards.
    No, you have it backwards. The security is built through EXCEPT for the top, where, for "user-friendliness" and backwards compatibility reasons, it was simplified or overridden. I don't know why you think cancel buttons count as a failure for the core of the system, which doesn't have a UI part and doesn't even know about cancel buttons and other UI features.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by siride View Post
    No, you have it backwards. The security is built through EXCEPT for the top, where, for "user-friendliness" and backwards compatibility reasons, it was simplified or overridden. I don't know why you think cancel buttons count as a failure for the core of the system, which doesn't have a UI part and doesn't even know about cancel buttons and other UI features.
    You somebody who works for MS trying to spread lies about how MS is "secure"? The FUNCTION is there. The CORE accepted the cancel button. Security is NOT throughout -- just a facade. Its a system built on the (badly implemented) mistake of backwards compatibility.

    Also the reason why virii run rampant on the platform. There's nothing in the way to stop them from propagating. Once they get through the spray-painted plastic wrap veil of security, there's nothing to stop them. That stupid "ask the user if they're really sure" thing that looks like security? Well that only comes up when the user actually tries to do something. Its there to look pretty and pretend that there's something intelligent going on in back there.

    So unless you want to post the source code to back up your claims, it will remain a black box of questionable and/or nonexistent security. All the evidence supports a complete lack of anything beyond the superficial.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    You somebody who works for MS trying to spread lies about how MS is "secure"? The FUNCTION is there. The CORE accepted the cancel button. Security is NOT throughout -- just a facade. Its a system built on the (badly implemented) mistake of backwards compatibility.

    Also the reason why virii run rampant on the platform. There's nothing in the way to stop them from propagating. Once they get through the spray-painted plastic wrap veil of security, there's nothing to stop them. That stupid "ask the user if they're really sure" thing that looks like security? Well that only comes up when the user actually tries to do something. Its there to look pretty and pretend that there's something intelligent going on in back there.

    So unless you want to post the source code to back up your claims, it will remain a black box of questionable and/or nonexistent security. All the evidence supports a complete lack of anything beyond the superficial.
    I'm not going to argue with someone who won't read documentation or verifiable explanations for how the security model works.

    By the way, have you considered that X display managers run as root? They could easily launch programs as root on behalf of the user, just like WINLOGON can in Windows. Yes, it's not a good idea to run those things as root, but there it is, on both systems. Is the system broken? Or is rather that the policy is broken.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by siride View Post
    I'm not going to argue with someone who won't read documentation or verifiable explanations for how the security model works.
    Do you actually trust documentation that is published by a criminal organization?

    By the way, have you considered that X display managers run as root? They could easily launch programs as root on behalf of the user, just like WINLOGON can in Windows.
    Did you know that XDM is optional? Wincrap isn't.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    Do you actually trust documentation that is published by a criminal organization?
    I don't know why them having a few regulation issues (not criminal, btw) means that everything they do and say is complete garbage. Poisoning the well fallacy much?

    Did you know that XDM is optional? Wincrap isn't.
    Actually, it is. Not as easily replaceable, but you don't have to run their shell.

    And who cares, really, if you can click cancel and get admin access. Once you have physical access to a machine, it's considered good as owned. Same with Linux. Linux you just have to boot to runlevel one and you have a root shell. Either that or pop in a livecd. Where are your complaints about Linux?

    Face it, you are just a freetard spreading FUD and garbage. You don't know what you are talking about and whenever you are called out on your incorrect understanding of how the system works, you respond with accusations of fraud and being paid by MS to say things (lol, I don't work for MS and have spent most of my computing time in the last six years not using Windows, mostly Linux and also Mac OS X). You are another worthless hack giving the Linux community a bad name. Not everything Microsoft does is bad and evil. Not everything the Linux world does is good and right. Welcome to the land of shades of gray.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,791

    Default

    X display managers run as root? How's that a problem? The X server itself runs as root, even without a display manager

  10. #40
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    X display managers run as root? How's that a problem? The X server itself runs as root
    Yeah, that's a problem too, which is slowly being addressed. You want to run as few things as root as possible in order to minimize attack surface. If the X server is running as root, then if it gets compromised, the infected code can do anything root can do, which is everything. If it were running as some type of sandbox server, the damage would be a lot more limited.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •