Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!auspex!guy
From: guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: rm etc. (was: Nasty Security Hole?)
Message-ID: <495@auspex.UUCP>
Date: 23 Nov 88 18:39:45 GMT
References: <175@ernie.NECAM.COM> <189@wyn386.UUCP> <8910@smoke.BRL.MIL> <118@hudson.Morgan.COM> <8941@smoke.BRL.MIL> <480@auspex.UUCP> <8956@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Reply-To: guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Distribution: na
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara
Lines: 23


 >->A utility such as "rm" COULD perform extra checks based on the inode
 >->permissions.  In fact the 4.nBSD "rm" does this ("override permissions
 >->on xxx?") and it is EXTREMELY annoying.
 >-So does the System V Release 3.1 one, and, if I remember correctly, so
 >-did the V7 and perhaps even the V6 one; one can hardly flame Berkeley
 >-for this one.
 >
 >But I think it was Berkeley who decided to prompt with a completely
 >misleading question!  I've known others who disliked this.

1) That's beside the point; one can *still* hardly flame Berkeley for
   deciding to make "rm" "perform extra checks based on the inode
   permissions", which is what you were apparently complaining about.
   If you're going to bash Berkeley for the sheer fun of it, at least
   bash them for things that are their fault....

2) Most other versions say "xxx: mmm mode ?"  I don't see that this is any
   better or worse than "override permissions on xxx?"  Neither one
   tells you precisely what the problem is.  The Berkeley one is hardly
   "completely misleading"; the "rm" command prefers not to remove files
   with permissions that prevent the user from writing the file, and
   it's asking you whether you want to override that restriction.