Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:31:01 -0600 (CST) | From | Jesse Pollard <> | Subject | Re: Disturbing news.. |
| |
Sean Hunter <sean@dev.sportingbet.com>: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 06:08:15AM -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote: > > Sure - very simple. If the execute bit is set on a file, don't allow > > ANY write to the file. This does modify the permission bits slightly > > but I don't think it is an unreasonable thing to have. > > > > Are we not then in the somewhat zen-like state of having an "rm" which can't > "rm" itself without needing to be made non-executable so that it can't execute?
We've been in that state for a long time... (carefull updating that libc.so file... can't overwrite/delete without having some REAL problems show up.)
It just calls for some carefull activity. If rm is being replaced, first rename it; then put new one in place; chmod old; delete old. It is directly comparable to the libc.so update procedure.
I should have left off the "very simple" remark.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jesse I Pollard, II Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil
Any opinions expressed are solely my own. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |