Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!hybrid!scifi!bywater!uunet!world!bzs From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: should Unix refuse to execute writable binaries? Message-ID: Date: 4 Mar 91 05:31:05 GMT References: <1991Mar2.193639.21105@tandem.com> Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Organization: The World Lines: 17 In-Reply-To: ernest@pegasus.dsg.tandem.com's message of 2 Mar 91 19:36:39 GMT Any writeable, public executable is a hazard, most users consider their own files valuable and such executables are a hazard to them as they run with their own privs. It's somewhat admin-o-centric to think there's something special about setuid/setgid, just a different form of damage possible (and system disruption is fairly possible from even non-priv'd accounts, for example a hacked program which fills /tmp.) The only idea that comes to mind would be something analogous to the umask() indicating which bits can and cannot be set on an executable, tho I suspect some thought will reveal that the problem is more subtle than that, but something like xmask(022) might help. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD