Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!pyrdc!gmu90x!dolqci!vrdxhq!bms-at!stuart
From: stuart@bms-at.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: access-lists vs. unix permissions
Message-ID: <467@bms-at.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 30-Jul-87 00:05:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: bms-at.467
Posted: Thu Jul 30 00:05:10 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Aug-87 08:15:42 EDT
References: <1334@ssc-vax.UUCP> <1144@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <151@hobbes.UUCP>
Organization: Business Management Systems, Inc., Fairfax, VA
Lines: 14
Summary: Somebody missed the point (either you or me)

In article <151@hobbes.UUCP>, root@hobbes.UUCP (John Plocher) writes:

>   For every open(), access() ...  the OS would have to check the
>   group file.

I believe that the idea of the group file is that the user would be
required to do a 'newgrp' command before accessing each set of files
with different security.  The OS is standard unix.  The group file
lists the users allowed to newgrp to each group.  Thus the claim that
standard unix can do the job of access lists (at the expense of
considerable user inconvenience).
-- 
Stuart D. Gathman	<stuart@bms-at.uucp>
			<..!seismo!dgis!bms-at!stuart>