Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!sage.cc.purdue.edu!asg
From: asg@sage.cc.purdue.edu (The Grand Master)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
Subject: Re: Retaining file permissions
Message-ID: <7246@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 2 Mar 91 21:01:47 GMT
References: <7120@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <1991Feb2 <1991Mar1.173548.8371@athena.mit.edu> <6227:Mar201:22:4391@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Sender: news@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Reply-To: asg@sage.cc.purdue.edu (The Grand Master)
Organization: Purdue University
Lines: 13

In article <6227:Mar201:22:4391@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
}Rather than thinking about security holes, think about user mistakes. If
}the kernel turns off the setuid bit upon write, it is much less likely
}for a setuid program to be accidentally corrupted than it would be
}otherwise. End of discussion.
That was not my point. I never disagreed with resetting the suid bit
upon a write - just the his expaination of the reason was not
well-thought-out. In fact, I believe that the suid bit should be unsettable
if the file is writable by anyone.
}
}---Dan

			Bruce