Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!cmcl2!husc6!m2c!ulowell!eagle!arosen
From: arosen@eagle.ulowell.edu (MFHorn)
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: Delete vs. rm
Message-ID: <5753@swan.ulowell.edu>
Date: 26 Mar 88 23:52:52 GMT
References: <36568QAA@PSUVM> <2413@bsu-cs.UUCP> <2903@enea.se> <5683@swan.ulowell.edu> <1155@csun.UUCP>
Sender: news@swan.ulowell.edu
Reply-To: arosen@hawk.ulowell.edu (MFHorn)
Organization: University of Lowell, CS Dept.
Lines: 23

In article <1155@csun.UUCP> sef@csun.UUCP (Sean Fagan) writes:
>In article <5683@swan.ulowell.edu> arosen@hawk.ulowell.edu (MFHorn) writes:
>>>  "rm" does, as far I know, just unlink the file, there is no /ERASE option 
>>>with which you can clean the disk space. 
>>
>>This is a problem, and until someone takes unix security _very_ seriously,
>>it will probably be ignored.
>
>(such
>as you cannot recover a file you just deleted, since it is possibly already
>dead and buried by then).

That's the whole idea, that when you get your prompt back, you _know_ the file
is gone, completely.  Retrieving deleted files is not an issue of security.
Protecting them from disk scavengers is.

This is necessary only in environments where security is very important and
very tight, so it's possible it will never be addressed in Unix.

Andy Rosen           | arosen@hawk.ulowell.edu | "I got this guitar and I
ULowell, Box #3031   | ulowell!arosen          |  learned how to make it
Lowell, Ma 01854     |                         |  talk" -Thunder Road
                   RD in '88 - The way it should be