On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Kyle Moffett wrote: > > > [all sorts of crap about spies in washington needing stronger protection > > than your average consumer] > > [snip] > > [...] all the bullcrap about foreign intelligence
Hehe, again, *you* started all the "bullcrap" about foreign "governments" in the first place :-) > is just drawing > focus off of how easy it is to achieve *adequate* physical protection where it ^^^^^^^^ > matters. Ah, so you're qualifying the discussion with the nice and subjective "adequate" ... (you're still wrong, of course) > Of course, this also relies on being able to teach the stupid lusers with the > laptops not to give their boot password to the "service tech on the phone" Let's stick on-topic here ... remember "securing a system against attacker with physical access is fairly simple" ? [ Took the liberty of removing some irrelevant digressions -- didn't see any solid security scheme that fulfils/justifies your earlier claim over there. ] > > > If your system equates end-user with attacker > > > > "If"? Was there ever any doubt? > > > > Heh, did you even read the thread you just replied to? > > Yes I did [...] No, you didn't -- it was obvious from your reply :-) > and I wanted to make it *really* clear that with average hardware > you can properly protect against virtually all of the *common* attack vectors. ^^^^^^ But what gave you the impression we're interested in discussing "common" or "adequate enough" attack vectors here? See, if you have something useful/new to contribute to the discussion, that we don't already know, then please don't hold back and feel free to do so ... Satyam - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/