Unix shells are generally not viable access control mechanisms any more

Re:Unix shells are generally not viable access control mecha... by TFortunato on Monday September 18, 2023 @11:44AM (#37557789)

> it's not the file system that's the problem here, it's that "everything is a file" is not true for a whole bunch of important stuff that you might want to apply access control to on a UNIX system

I wonder if there has ever been an attempt to really lean into, and push the limits of sticking with the "everything is a file" philosophy in this realm.

I.e. how far could you get with having special files for fine grained permissions like "right to initiate a TCP connection", and making access control management be, essentially, managing which groups a user belonged to?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Unix shells are generally not viable access control mecha... by generalizations on Monday September 18, 2023 @01:18PM (#37559028)

I think that was Plan 9.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Unix shells are generally not viable access control mecha... by jampekka on Monday September 18, 2023 @01:27PM (#37559156)

Plan 9 probably took this the furthest. Sad it didn't take off. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Unix shells are generally not viable access control mecha... by tenebrisalietum on Monday September 18, 2023 @01:31PM (#37559215)

I think Hurd and Plan 9 take the EIAF further.

[ Parent | on HN ]