Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!uflorida!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Nasty Security Hole?
Keywords: permissions
Message-ID: <8927@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 18 Nov 88 04:24:25 GMT
References: <175@ernie.NECAM.COM> <189@wyn386.UUCP> <2470@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Distribution: na
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 8

In article <2470@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> trn%warper.jhuapl.edu@aplvax.jhuapl.edu (Tony Nardo) writes:
>A pity the implementers of UNIX didn't borrow one the idea of having a
>separate "delete" bit.  It's one of a number of DEC features I miss.

What in the world would it MEAN?  It is the DIRECTORY that is modified
by an unlink, not the inode.  Would a "delete" bit then mean that no
links to the inode could be removed?  Think about the consequences for
a bit.  It would be horrible!