From owner-freebsd-security Tue Oct 14 17:02:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA27941 for security-outgoing; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 17:02:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-security) Received: from blubb.pdc.kth.se (blubb.pdc.kth.se [193.10.159.47]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA27915 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 17:02:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from joda@pdc.kth.se) Received: from joda by blubb.pdc.kth.se with local (Exim 1.71 #1) id 0xLGth-0002Fn-00; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 02:01:09 +0200 To: Robert Watson Cc: Aleph One , freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: C2 Trusted FreeBSD? References: X-Emacs: 19.34 Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI MIME-Edit 0.77) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: joda@pdc.kth.se (Johan Danielsson) Date: 15 Oct 1997 02:01:07 +0200 In-Reply-To: Robert Watson's message of Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:16:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Lines: 38 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.52/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Robert Watson writes: > > HP-UX has had ACLs for quite some time now but not one uses them > > just because of this. > > This is not entirely true; Right, I use ACLs on local file systems, when they are available. > ls is minorly-modified so as to ignore non-user permissions (AFS, as > I understand it, does maintain user rwx, etc, just not for others.) There are no changes to any user level programs in AFS. You need patched versions of cp/tar/pax/whatever if you want to preserve acls when copying files. In most situations this isn't a problem. The biggest problems are with `smart' programs that think they can figure out the permissions just by looking at the mode bits. The mode bits are preserved, but only the owner bits are used, and are used for everyone (xored with your acl-permissions). [per file or per directory ACLs] I actually find the per-directory acls in AFS a feature and not a bug. The only real problem is with ignorant users that just expects everything to work the same as in some other filesystem. The DFS approach to use ACLs on individual files is much more complex. > The by-directory ACL scheme does not work so well for /dev, for > example! File permissions doesn't work well in /dev at all. You really set permissions on objects, but a device file isn't an object, it's just a front-end to an object. It would be the same with files if you stored file permissions in the directories rather than in the inodes. /Johan