Re: Disturbing news..

[Jesse Pollard]

Sean Hunter <[e-mail]>:
> 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: [e-mail]

Any opinions expressed are solely my own.