Le Dimanche 19 Octobre 2003 00:50, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : > >> > Le Samedi 18 Octobre 2003 11:43, Buchan Milne a écrit : > >> >> No significant advantage over CUPS (AFAIR). > >> > > >> > So would you prefer cups for a printer not shared (for both security > >> > >> and size reasons) ? > >> > >> I have no such printers ;-). > > > > unlike many people (such as standalone desktops) ;-) > > Huh? What is that? ;-) (sorry, but no place I have been recently has less > than 2 computers, and if you have 2 computers and a printer ...). lucky man! ;-)
> > >> Till probably has some other reasons ... > > > > I wonder which ones. > > > > > > I found this script: > > /etc/dynamic/scripts/functions.script > > > > check_activated $0 > > > > MODE=660 > > OWNER=lp.sys > > > > if [ -x /usr/sbin/update-alternatives ]; then > > TYPE=`/usr/sbin/update-alternatives --display lpr 2> /dev/null | > > grep > > currently | cut -f 6 -d ' '` > > case "$TYPE" in > > *lpd) MODE=660; OWNER=lp.lp;; > > *cups) MODE=660; OWNER=lp.sys;; > > *pdq) MODE=666;; # should be done via pam_console > > esac > > fi > > ... > > > > Is pdq less secure than others for this ? > > In some ways yes, in others, no. > > PDQ doesn't have a spooler, so all users need to be able to print. > Currently it looks like this is just done by makeing the print devices > world-writeable. As the comment says, pam_console (see > /etc/security/console.perms) would be better, which is how a lot of other > devices are managed. > > Of course, PDQ doesn't have a daemon running with elevated priveleges > (like CUPS does). > > So, with PDQ you are allowing any logged in user to send any data they > like to the machine, with CUPS you are allowing any remote user (unless > you do some work securing it) to send data to port 631 on your machine. > Worst case scenario for PDQ is someone sends data to your printer that > does it some harm (or uses your paper). With CUPS, they could again > elevated priveleges, *and* waste all your paper ;-). > > For a single-user, non-networked machine, PDQ is better. But, for a Then why not include it in the 3 cd set? Most of the users need it. Few people around me have more than only one computer and few of them have a network. :-) (All have an other os! :-<) _If you are right_, i hope it has been included in discovery edition whith choice for the user to use it or not... > network, CUPS is just so much easier (easier than Windows printing since > you just plug a machine in the network and it finds all printers, and you > don't have to worry about printer drivers etc). > > Regards, > Buchan
