From owner-freebsd-security Sun Mar 14 16:52: 9 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from phoenix.volant.org (phoenix.volant.org [205.179.79.193]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E05491504F for ; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 16:52:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from patl@phoenix.volant.org) Received: from asimov.phoenix.volant.org ([205.179.79.65]) by phoenix.volant.org with smtp (Exim 1.92 #8) id 10MLbh-0000Uv-00; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 16:51:49 -0800 Received: from localhost by asimov.phoenix.volant.org (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA09491; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 16:51:45 -0800 Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 16:51:45 -0800 (PST) From: patl@phoenix.volant.org Reply-To: patl@phoenix.volant.org Subject: Re: ACL's To: Robert Watson Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > So, does anyone have any examples of situations handled incorrectly/badly > by allowing only the owner of a file to link() it? I'm sure there have been times when that would have caused an irritating need to su. How would you feel about relaxing that to owner or anyone with write permission? (And I suspect I'd still want that to be a sysctl flag that could revert to current behavour.) -Pat To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message