Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!gatech!galbp!wittsend.LBP.HARRIS.COM!mhw
From: mhw@wittsend.LBP.HARRIS.COM (Michael H. Warfield (Mike))
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Nasty Security Hole?
Keywords: permissions
Message-ID: <6521@galbp.LBP.HARRIS.COM>
Date: 18 Nov 88 16:35:15 GMT
References: <175@ernie.NECAM.COM> <189@wyn386.UUCP> <2470@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> <8927@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Sender: news@galbp.LBP.HARRIS.COM
Reply-To: mhw@wittsend.UUCP (Michael H. Warfield (Mike))
Distribution: na
Organization: Harris/Lanier Network Knitting Circle
Lines: 20

In article <8927@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
>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!

     Nope.  Sound great as long as it was in addition to directory permissions
and not instead of directory permissions.  Doesn't sound too good when you
say you will allow or disallow delete permission on all the files in a directory
regardless of the nature of the individual files.  Maybe some of the definition
needs refining but it sure could fix more problems than it casues!

Michael H. Warfield  (The Mad Wizard)	| gatech.edu!galbp!wittsend!mhw
  (404)  270-2123 / 270-2098		| mhw@wittsend.LBP.HARRIS.COM
An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds.
A pessimist is sure of it!