From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Bob Proulx Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Does anyone really use emacs in terminal? Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 20:48:54 -0600 Message-ID: <20130509024854.GA8176@hysteria.proulx.com> References: <0b72021c-139f-4269-8e81-5b5ef97fb83d@googlegroups.com> <8761yu64e4.fsf@Servus.decebal.nl> <87r4higq45.fsf@gmail.com> <87ip2tyftv.fsf@yahoo.fr> <87sj1xs9df.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> <20130508194906.GA11349@hysteria.proulx.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1368067751 28858 80.91.229.3 (9 May 2013 02:49:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 02:49:11 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu May 09 04:49:11 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UaGus-0008WV-LG for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 09 May 2013 04:49:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49842 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UaGus-0008Lr-5O for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 May 2013 22:49:10 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:42336) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UaGuf-0008Lm-AM for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 08 May 2013 22:48:59 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UaGue-0003X4-7r for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 08 May 2013 22:48:57 -0400 Original-Received: from joseki.proulx.com ([216.17.153.58]:45766) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UaGue-0003Vn-13 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 08 May 2013 22:48:56 -0400 Original-Received: from hysteria.proulx.com (hysteria.proulx.com [192.168.230.119]) by joseki.proulx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17B5E211DB for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 20:48:55 -0600 (MDT) Original-Received: by hysteria.proulx.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A70073DA32; Wed, 8 May 2013 20:48:54 -0600 (MDT) Mail-Followup-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 216.17.153.58 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:90561 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > > But emacs will always ask you if it should proceed due to that issue. > > It will never do it automatically. It isn't intrinsically insecure. > > Well, that depends how paranoid you are. It used to be intrinsically > insecure (only prompting the user for things known to be dicey) and has > been improved over the years (always prompting unless told that it's > safe), but there are so many variables marked as "safe" that might be > used in unexpected ways by so many packages that "intrinsically secure" > sounds naive. I didn't say "intrinsically secure". I said, "It isn't intrinsically INsecure." Which isn't the same thing. A couple of quotes come to mind. "It is hard to make things foolproof because fools are so clever." "You can make things foolproof. But you can't make them damn foolproof." :-) > More specifically, I'd be *very* surprised if there aren't any "big > security holes" waiting to be exploited in Emacs. Show me the bug report. Unless there is a bug report on *something*, anything, then I call shenanigans and say it is nothing but spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). Because just using the computer is a security hole. Which reminds me of another posting. There is only one truly secure computer system. http://www.ranum.com/security/computer_security/papers/a1-firewall/index.html > Stefan "who uses Zile when running as root" I don't know. I heard on the Internet that Zile has security vulnerabilities. (Part of the FUD, counter-FUD, campaign. I really don't have anything against Zile.) Bob