Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!teknowledge-vaxc!sri-unix!quintus!ok
From: ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: rm etc. (was: Nasty Security Hole?)
Message-ID: <730@quintus.UUCP>
Date: 23 Nov 88 06:53:42 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>
Sender: news@quintus.UUCP
Reply-To: ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Distribution: na
Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 23

In article <8956@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
>In article <480@auspex.UUCP> guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris) writes:
>->A utility such as "rm" COULD perform extra checks based on the permissions
>-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.

Hmm.  Let's compare 4.2BSD and V.2 on a Sequent:
	% cp /dev/null zabbo
	% chmod 000 zabbo
	% att rm zabbo
	zabbo: 0 mode ? n
	% bsd rm zabbo
	rm: override protection 0 for zabbo? n

What is "completely misleading" about that question?  The file does in
fact have mode/protection 0, and it is in fact rm which is asking me
whether I want its reluctance to delete the file overridden.  I always
found the Sys V prompt rather obscure, especially when you run a script
and the message pops up out of nowhere.  At least the BSD prompt follows
the convention of telling you which program is asking!