[lkml]   [1999]   [Jul]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Your backup is unsafe!
On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Riley Williams wrote:
> Personally, I see that behaviour as a serious bug in the current code,
> as only names that are actually visible should have any affect. OK,
> there may be names that are invisible that get labelled as illegal,
> and I see no problem with that, but any other behaviour for names that
> are not visible is at best a security problem and at worst a disaster
> waiting to happen.

Twice now you've asserted without warrant that some unexpected FAT
behavior is a security issue. It isn't. It's a "if you don't know what
you're doing, you can fuck up really bad" issue, but not a security one.
Now I grant that a confusing scheme like this is probably bad... I think
we agree there. I think that long names should be the only ones available
in a vfat-mounted fs, and that short names should only be used to fail
creation of other files by that name. But the reason isn't security.
It's principle of least surprise, consistency, and five million other

If you can present a security issue here... a way that an intruder could
exploit that situation to cause root to accidentally delete files (barring
of course, an intruder with root access who coulda done it anyway) that
I'll eat my words and agree that there's a security issue there. Until
then, you are just confusing the matter.

Chris Smith <>

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:53    [W:0.132 / U:3.572 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site