Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!yale!cmcl2!stealth.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: What new system calls do you want in BSD?
Message-ID: <5068.16:48:52@stealth.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 8 Feb 90 22:48:53 GMT
References: <12157@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> <1990Jan24.193433.3332@semi.harris-atd.com> <23449@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> <1990Feb8.080645.4458@semi.harris-atd.com>
Reply-To: brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Distribution: usa
Organization: IR
Lines: 12

In article <1990Feb8.080645.4458@semi.harris-atd.com> del@thrush.semi.harris-atd.com (Don Lewis) writes:
> In article <23449@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> >In article <1990Jan24.193433.3332@semi.harris-atd.com> del@thrush.semi.harris-atd.com (Don Lewis) writes:
> >>   open(file,O_PEEK)
> >This could be a flag on any open, meaning simply ``update ctime rather
> >than atime or mtime.'' Crackers already know about utimes(); perhaps an
> >O_PEEK flag would educate inexperienced sysadmins.
> I don't want it to update the ctime either.

That would be a security violation.

---Dan