From owner-freebsd-security Mon Aug 30 11:14: 7 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [209.157.86.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2F3C15C65 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:13:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id LAA16174; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:12:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:12:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199908301812.LAA16174@apollo.backplane.com> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" Cc: imp@village.org (Warner Losh), bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans), dynamo@ime.net, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Not sure if you got it... References: <199908301801.LAA66101@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org :> :> Any objections to chflags nouflags going into the tree, modulo :> problems with the actual code that does it? : :I don't have a problem with that. : :> :> 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 : :I have a problem with this, it means updating 1 more chunk of code :should the set of items in uflags change. : :-- :Rod Grimes - KD7CAX - (RWG25) rgrimes@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net Maybe what we need to do is allow a umask to be set for the flag bits in the mount. So, for example, you would be able to specify which flag bits are allowed to be set on a mount-by-mount basis (both user and system). Otherwise we may wind up spending the next year trying to 'fix' security holes in scripts related to the flag bits. -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message