Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!mindcraft.com!karish
From: karish@mindcraft.com (Chuck Karish)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: non-superuser chown(2)s considered harmful
Message-ID: <660602312.10476@mindcraft.com>
Date: 7 Dec 90 20:38:31 GMT
References: <1990Dec5.135759.12508@noao.edu> <1990Dec6.005358.6336@dg-rtp.dg.com> <109958@convex.convex.com> <18786@rpp386.cactus.org>
Organization: Mindcraft, Inc.
Lines: 14

In article <18786@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
(John F Haugh II) writes:
>As for the annoying aspects of non-superuser chown(), such as
>mischevious users, that's an administrative problem.

It certainly is.  And non-superuser chown() destroys information 
that's vital for some administrative tasks.

That's why FIPS 151-1 mandates that the POSIX.1 _POSIX_CHOWN_RESTRICTED
option be supported.
-- 

	Chuck Karish		karish@mindcraft.com
	Mindcraft, Inc.		(415) 323-9000