KDE policy on security. HDD not mounted frugal mode [Solved]

[nooby]

In puppy one can do almost anything.

Which is both good and bad.

In Mint KDE CE and in Antix KDE too and many others.

They lock the ordinary user out from reading the files on an NTFS formatted HDD.

Maybe one can work around it by changing user priv's but as a total newbie on KDE one have no clue on how one become a super user. One even don't know how to set oneself up as one.

Does it help to protect from hacking from the internet or is it an false secuity?

one bad things they done is to make the IPtables so difficult to use that one have no idea if one are protected or not. One fail to know how to look if one have a guarddog or not.

Puppy is different in that one have a menu and it says it is activated. doing iptables -L in terminal show Drop and that seems to indicate it don't allow access?

While in KDE they don't even allow me to do iptables -L

I mean how much secure are one if one fail to activate the firewall out of ignorance about how one activate it in a secure way.

[DMcCunney]

In puppy one can do almost anything.

Which is both good and bad.

In Mint KDE CE and in Antix KDE too and many others.

They lock the ordinary user out from reading the files on an NTFS formatted HDD.

Maybe one can work around it by changing user priv's but as a total newbie on KDE one have no clue on how one become a super user. One even don't know how to set oneself up as one.

Does it help to protect from hacking from the internet or is it an false secuity?

Why don't you learn to do a little research elsewhere before making statements like this here?

If you do something like entering "read ntfs from kde" in Google, you'll find links to things like

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=625824

and

http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-linux&m=116237010629964&w=2

and you'll discover it has nothing to do with security and is a bug easily worked around.

one bad things they done is to make the IPtables so difficult to use that one have no idea if one are protected or not. One fail to know how to look if one have a guarddog or not.

Puppy is different in that one have a menu and it says it is activated. doing iptables -L in terminal show Drop and that seems to indicate it don't allow access?

While in KDE they don't even allow me to do iptables -L

I mean how much secure are one if one fail to activate the firewall out of ignorance about how one activate it in a secure way.

There is a difference between "Not being allowed to" and "not knowing how to". You seem to be confusing the two.

Open a terminal in KDE. Enter "sudo iptables -L". Enter your password when prompted. What do you get?

I don't believe this is a KDE issue at all. What you want to do requires root access, and you aren't root. You must either log in as root or use sudo.

In Puppy you are always root and don't see that issue.

And as for the underlying issue of whatehr you are protected by iptables, what do you think you need protection from?

I have iptables enabled here, but it's a reflex, since my internet connection goes through a wireless router with a built-in firewall.
______
Dennis

[nooby]

Thanks Dennis,

You are right. Good link the first one. So a bug made it more complicated than they wanted it to be.

I agree that it is the user that should learn how the developer sat up the system. That one need to be root.

When one know things then it is rather easy to do things.
Before one have that knowledge then one need to be as organized as you are to find that info and to remember how to use it.

I make the thread solved.