[nfsv4] Windows/NFSv4 ACL interoperability

[Yoder, Alan]

I'd guess that these threads also prove that POSIX ACLs 
are "not usable or easily understood even by people with 
research degrees in computer science." 

Your assertion regarding usable security--which I agree 
with at the philosophical level--is tough to validate by 
looking at market acceptance of the alternatives.

Alan

===============================================================
Alan G. Yoder                                    agy at netapp.com
Technical Staff                           
Network Appliance, Inc.                            408-822-6919
=============================================================== 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Allison [mailto:jra at samba.org] 
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 5:44 PM
> To: J. Bruce Fields; Yoder, Alan; Gardere_Daniel at emc.com; 
> samba-technical at lists.samba.org; nfsv4 at ietf.org; 
> Roche_Francois at emc.com
> Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Windows/NFSv4 ACL interoperability
> 
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 06:10:28PM -0600, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > The Windows ordering is done in the GUI/libraries, not in 
> the kernel.
> > 
> > Cygwin has exploited this in the past to emulate POSIX 
> modes much as one
> > might use this to emulate POSIX Draft ACLs.
> > 
> > > So the problem is just with stuff like a posix user 
> setting a bunch of
> > > long carefully crafted ACLs and then a Windows user not 
> being able to
> > > read them and blowing them away in an attempt to modify them.
> > > 
> > > To a certain extent that kind of problem may be 
> unavoidable.  But we may
> > > have some control over how common it is and how 
> gracefully we fail.
> > 
> > I agree.  The right solution is to move away from POSIX Draft ACLs.
> 
> I disagree. POSIX draft ACLs are the right level of complexity for
> administrators to handle, and the Gnome and KDE GUI's are starting
> to be able to handle them. Windows ACLs are completely overdesigned
> and (as these threads adequately prove), not usable or easily 
> understood
> even by people with research degrees in computer science.
> 
> In terms of *usable* security (which IMHO is the only kind 
> that matters
> in the real world) POSIX ACLs are far superiour to Windows/NFSv4 ACLs.
> 
> Jeremy.
>