point taken. I'll look into it further when I'm past the 'newbie' status...
When you're talking about Windows, I'm getting the impression you talk about Win95,
which seems insecure to me, by the mere fact it is possible to bypass the login
prompt. You are right of course in that it is hard to have both a secure and a handy
system.
Jo
darkknight wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jul 1999, Jo wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Recently my system failed to boot (I had added something to rc.local, that didn't
>belong there). On irc I was told that I could still boot if I gave linux single at
>the LILO boot. This worked, but to my surprise I never had to enter a login or a
>password. Even then, I was allowed to change rc.local back to what it was.
> >
> > Is this normal? I thought Linux was supposed to be so secure.
> >
> > Jo
>
> It is secure, but in varying degrees. In server mode or even in workstation
> mode it is quite secure but in single user mode in is not. Single user mode to
> my limited knowledge is not ment for use on the internet, not in terms of
> security anyway. In workstation or server mode when you are NOT logged on as
> root it is quite secure. It is all a matter of how you use it as to how secure
> it is. Just as many Windows users defeat what security it does have by
> bypassing the Windows user logon which can be used to set it up with varying
> degrees of security. Yet most users just hit enter on a blank question block
> asking for default user info when Windows starts the first time. In this way it
> is never secure unless the user goes back later and sets up security messures
> for different users. Anyway, Linux can be secure, or not depending on how you
> use it, like with alot of things.
>
> John Love
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
