Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au!levels!xtdn From: xtdn@levels.sait.edu.au Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals Subject: Re: Ideas for changes to Unix filesystem Message-ID: <15897.27bc36db@levels.sait.edu.au> Date: 15 Feb 91 19:30:35 GMT References: <15878.27b3841d@levels.sait.edu.au> <27B98C54.66F9@tct.uucp> Organization: University of South Australia Lines: 18 bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: > Except now you can come back later, say a week later, and re-open the > file (assuming the file protexns were ok), without the setuid program. But Barry, you have put you're finger on a very salient point; which is that one can always protect the file thus disallowing it from being opened later. I don't see that flink() would cause any major security problems. Just to put this into context: as things stand one could leave the recipient process running for a week and then read the file. Really, excepting that processes can be killed and that machines do sometimes go down, flink() would not allow any access that one cannot now obtain. David Newall, who no longer works Phone: +61 8 344 2008 for SA Institute of Technology E-mail: xtdn@lux.sait.edu.au "Life is uncertain: Eat dessert first"