Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:02:45 +0000 (GMT) | From | The Deviant <> | Subject | Re: Proposal: restrict link(2) |
| |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, Ion Badulescu wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > > > Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 02:43:11 -0500 (EST) > > From: Dan Merillat <Dan@merillat.org> > > > > Besides, by link()ing to a file you change it. And if you don't have the > > ability to write to it, you should _NOT_ be able to change a file. > > symlinks don't count, as they are just pointers to a file that may, or may > > not exist. Hard links become the file itself. > > > > Incorrect. Being able to link to a file does not mean you can change > > it. > > No, you can't change the data blocks. But you _will_ change the inode by > incrementing the link count. > > I'm not saying that changing the link count is wrong by itself, as you can > also change the atime by simply reading the file.. > > > Ionut > > -- > It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, > than to open it and remove all doubt. >
Again I must point out that using link(2) changes nothing in the actual _FILE_, which is the security concern. it still has the same mode and owners. Nobody who couldn't read or write to it can, and nobody who can can't. Its a non-issue.
--Deviant PGP KeyID = E820F015 Fingerprint = 3D6AAB628E3DFAA9 F7D35736ABC56D39
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently. -- Nietzsche
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBMrGMQzCdEh3oIPAVAQE/Jgf/SEbyzsb3H8McSmUYUhnSNxq5eGTHMH9r RLnUSRBSObyHIUq8dL54pQgX9QItMox7/mKkEgOPfdpbQ/Fl+uwd2zP0O1b5m3Tb fQJ33YjRA1VNkLLxmmJlFBsqrCDNaj4VVpp9vNZx+jWZZpXQBIwH/VIcpfJQV8YM 9opcXlcoP/J/a8Vo0JV7naiISIa3q0xHv3zBi8/hnpHR74KOH5cbIZF8G2SiguuQ phMFxJTPdk9DJiZU5mo0M+y+Bm3PDAGPyLWep9wE1d8vBwKX0UyDmbQFN+Mhor95 7ndGPja4izJEMOiF+bZCgaHeamd009Y1jiKmT6OGkSXIsiJ9ZIB9HQ== =wdXs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |