From owner-freebsd-security Sun Aug 29 20:41:12 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B64CC156AE for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 20:40:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (harmony.village.org [10.0.0.6]) by rover.village.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA00857; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 21:40:44 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.9.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id VAA00562; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 21:39:59 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199908300339.VAA00562@harmony.village.org> To: Bruce Evans Subject: Re: Not sure if you got it... Cc: dynamo@ime.net, security@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 30 Aug 1999 13:07:57 +1000." <199908300307.NAA06836@godzilla.zeta.org.au> References: <199908300307.NAA06836@godzilla.zeta.org.au> Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 21:39:59 -0600 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org In message <199908300307.NAA06836@godzilla.zeta.org.au> Bruce Evans writes: : >Is there a better way to turn off all the user flags then? : : Turning them all off works of course: : : chflags dump,noopaque,nouappnd,nochg,nouunlnk : : Is this better :-)? It's not future-proof. I'd prefer `chflags nouflags'. Any objections to chflags nouflags going into the tree, modulo problems with the actual code that does it? I'd also like to have a new flag to rm. -F. One -F will be chflags nouflags foo ; rm -f foo while two -F will be chflags 0 foo ; rm -f foo This is mostly for convenience, since otherwise I have to uglify the rc scripts with chflags. Comments on this idea as well? I've gotten antipathy in the past when I've asked. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message