Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!mcsun!ukc!vision!ukpoit!alan
From: alan@ukpoit.co.uk (Alan Barclay)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
Subject: Re: restricted shell sought
Message-ID: <1991May3.080938.6241@ukpoit.co.uk>
Date: 3 May 91 08:09:38 GMT
References: <29183@fs1.NISC.SRI.COM> <1991Apr25.040344.15655@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <JC.91Apr25135941@raven.bu.edu>
Distribution: comp
Organization: iT - The Information Technology Business Of The Post Office
Lines: 19

In article <JC.91Apr25135941@raven.bu.edu> jc@raven.bu.edu (James Cameron) writes:
>
>Well, this is definately sometimes necessary.  Take the following example:
>
>We have two full disks containing only data for our lab.  We need
>to allow read access to this data, but nothing else. We don't have 
>the disk space to simply copy the data over to the ftp files.  So,
>basically, restricted shells *are* needed for special cases.  Maybe
>I am forgetting something, but I don't think so.  *8-)
>

Why not mount the disks as read/only, this will give kernel level protection,
must better than mucking around with restricted shells.

-- 
  Alan Barclay
  iT                                |        E-mail : alan@ukpoit.uucp
  Barker Lane                       |        BANG-STYLE : .....!ukc!ukpoit!alan
  CHESTERFIELD S40 1DY              |        VOICE : +44 246 214241