From owner-freebsd-fs Mon Oct 27 10:56:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA14715 for fs-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 10:56:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-fs) Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.5.85]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA14708 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 10:56:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr04.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp04.primenet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA16860; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:56:14 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr04.primenet.com(206.165.6.204) via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpd016845; Mon Oct 27 11:56:04 1997 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr04.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA25520; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:56:01 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199710271856.LAA25520@usr04.primenet.com> Subject: Re: disabled symlinks To: guido@gvr.org (Guido van Rooij) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 18:56:01 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, roberto@keltia.freenix.fr, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199710271828.TAA01989@gvr.gvr.org> from "Guido van Rooij" at Oct 27, 97 07:28:51 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > As far as "nosuid" goes, I will note that if root runs a program on > > a nosuid mounted volume, the program runs as root. And root can also > > "suid" to any user id, and run the program, simulating an "suid" event. > > ?? So what. That isn;t the issue here. If root runs rm -rf / things > will also break. That has nothing to do with suid. The "nosuid" was someone else's analogy. If you want nosymlink to be analogous, then excepting root from enforcement is the correct way to do it. > I still think otherwise. Now that symlinks do have owners, teh > same can be achieved by only following symlinks if they are > owned by root. This is much less objectionable to me than not following symlinks; on the other hand, you only need to *either* not allow them *OR* not follow them. The protection doesn't get better if you do both. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.