> "sorry but "linux buffs" already know that you can mount the disk and do whatever they want." - Yeah? And how exactly would
> you "mount" the disk? Physical access? hmm... I think I could do anything to a box when I have physical access to it. If
it might be my bad english but it seems that you've not understood the article:
the article says that anyone with physical access can read the disk
- you say that it's "linux buffs" that blew this out of proportion
- i said that "linux buffs" aren't shocked by the fact that you can read a disk - so it's not their fault - it's the fault of "windows professionals" that see a password box when they boot from a recovery cd and think that it's meant to protect something - this is what i called a pointless access control
- you say 'you "mount" the disk? Physical access?' - yes physical access - that's what the article is about. isn't it? if you knew any other systems you would know that the term for attaching a filesystem to part of a directory tree is called "mounting" and is done by the mount command in unix systems (in windows 2000 you can also attach a disk to a directory and i think it's also called "mounting")

i won't even try to discuss the second part of your message. please just don't assume that if most windows administrators don't have a clue about unix, that unix administrators don't have a clue about windows - this should aid you in further discussion

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/144/18352#18352