Article View: comp.std.unix
Article #22Re: chown and chmod u+s: Security Violation - why ?
From: Peter da Silva
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1992 04:45
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1992 04:45
23 lines
1648 bytes
1648 bytes
Submitted-by: peter@ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) In article <15kud7INN99h@ftp.UU.NET> toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl (Toon Moene) writes: > Thanks to all those kind enough to mail me why chown isn't a good idea in > ordinary user's hands (I have been too long out of the business of system > administrating OS's, clearly - got to get mean again :-) All those people are wrong. Sorry, but mandatory quotas based on access permissions is simply a matter of mixing two unrelated concepts. A properly implemented quota system would track the accounting ownership of the file independently of the owning user-ID. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' $ EDIT/TECO LOVE 'U` %TECO-W-OLDJOKE Not war? Have you hugged your wolf today? Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp. Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012 +1 713 274 5180 [ Okay, I think it's time to take it to comp.unix.advocacy -- would that such a group existed. In the meantime, comp.unix.admin is probably the best compromise. -mod ] Volume-Number: Volume 28, Number 79
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<15nmcgINN4ac@ftp.UU.NET>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!uunet!not-for-mailReferences:
<15ibqsINNc3a@ftp.UU.NET> <15kud7INN99h@ftp.UU.NET>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!uunet!not-for-mail From: peter@ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.std.unix Subject: Re: chown and chmod u+s: Security Violation - why ? Date: 4 Aug 1992 21:45:04 -0700 Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 23 Sender: sef@ftp.UU.NET Approved: sef@ftp.uucp (Moderator, Sean Eric Fagan) Message-ID: <15nmcgINN4ac@ftp.UU.NET> References: <15ibqsINNc3a@ftp.UU.NET> <15kud7INN99h@ftp.UU.NET> NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.uu.net X-Submissions: std-unix@uunet.uu.net