[techtalk] request for ideas

[sagekat at mail.com]

Jim Browning wrote:

> Just This Girl wrote:
>
> > I rather like the security of having to mount/umount, and having to have
> root
> > access to do so. It prevents suspect users from inserting boot disks that
> could
> > have undesired consequences.
>
> Now I'll really show my lack of Linux familiarity, but are you saying that
> "mounting" the drive performs the same function as an autostart ("winspeak")
> function? So that a boot disk inserted into an automounted drive would
> automatically execute? The manner in which I'm accustomed to thinking of
> "mounting" a drive is for the operating system to be instructed to become
> aware of its existence (like the concept of DOS "mounting" a double-space
> compressed drive) - but not execute files/programs on that drive until
> instructed to do so.
>
> ************
> techtalk at linuxchix.org   http://www.linuxchix.org

I just joined this list.  Sorry if I'm jumping into the discussion midway.  I
don't think even windows would auto execute anything from a floppy drive.
That'd be a terrible security flaw.

I do like the mount option in that it gives the option of mounting it in
different ways.  I know windows can't read ext2 filesystems and suggests format
as soon as it detects anything other than vfat or msdos.  whereas the mount in
linux allows different filesystem types to be mounted (even vfat).  and if it's
a especially valuable floppy you can mount it read only so you won't
accidentally write over it.  I dunno, but the options are kind of nice.  mount
is not a difficult command to use and in the long run, it does give you more
control.

cheers.

Kat


************
techtalk at linuxchix.org   http://www.linuxchix.org