On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Lennart Poettering <lennart at poettering.net> wrote: > On Wed, 10.02.10 09:59, Markus Rechberger (mrechberger at gmail.com) wrote: > >> this is another wrong assumption, libusb uses raw USB access, if every >> user would have access >> to USB some devices might be damaged. >> Sane would need to be serverbased, full raw access to the usb bus >> would seriously be a security >> risk (imagine RAW USB access to a USB harddisk). > > This is nonsense. Since ages we by default add ACLs for the console > user for libusb devices for cameras, scanners, and so on. That too > works via udev-acl. Lennard, don't spread nonsense around, if you have raw access to a camera there might be the possibility to update the firmware and damage the device. If you would have little experience with hardware you should know about that. Your ACL/libusb restriction won't make this situation better it's still a security risk. Although just drop libusb as an example. Markus > > You are spreading FUD and lies. You are annoying. And are stealing my > time. I'd prefer if you'd waste other people's time, and stop lighting > up the flames of this flamewar over and over again. > > Lennart > > -- > Lennart Poettering ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Red Hat, Inc. > lennart [at] poettering [dot] net > http://0pointer.net/lennart/ ? ? ? ? ? GnuPG 0x1A015CC4 > _______________________________________________ > pulseaudio-discuss mailing list > pulseaudio-discuss at mail.0pointer.de > https://tango.0pointer.de/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss >
