> Factotum seems, at best, to be bolted on after the fact.
What gives you this impression?
Re:You Are in a Box
by packetlost on Monday July 14, 2025 @02:34PM
(#44563662)
It literally was, it didn't exist until the 4th edition of Plan9. That isn't to say it isn't a good idea (or implementation), but security is very clearly not a primary concern in Plan9.
> but security is very clearly not a primary concern in Plan9.
That is a myth that keeps getting propagated. https://plan9.io/sys/doc/auth.html
Re:You Are in a Box
by packetlost on Monday July 14, 2025 @03:08PM
(#44564068)
That paper is about factotum which was introduced in 4th edition, like I said. Regardless, I'm more talking about the fact that transport encryption still isn't used ubiquitously to my knowledge.
> That paper is about factotum which was introduced in 4th edition, like I said.
Which describes that yes, there was security in Plan 9 prior to Factotum, just that it wasn't good enough.
> Regardless, I'm more talking about the fact that transport encryption still isn't used ubiquitously to my knowledge.
It certainly is. You get SSL/TLS for free on Plan 9 as its a service. You dont mess with security code and instead use tlssrv(8). See https://man.9front.org/8/tlssrv
Re:You Are in a Box
by packetlost on Monday July 14, 2025 @04:10PM
(#44564689)
I didn't see there wasn't, I said it wasn't a priority.
I stand corrected on tlssrv
The real problem is Plan9 never really had a lot of attention put on the things that make having a sane security policy good. Factotum seems, at best, to be bolted on after the fact.