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.

▲

MisterTea 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> 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

▲

packetlost 7 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

MisterTea 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> 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

	▲	packetlost 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I didn't see there wasn't, I said it wasn't a priority. I stand corrected on tlssrv