Re: IMMUTABLE and APPEND-ONLY rationales

From: Derek Martin (derek@cerberus.ne.mediaone.net)
Date: Sun Jun 25 2000 - 06:47:26 EST


Yesterday, David Ford gleaned this insight:

> >
> > That means I have to use an extra command. I'm a student, and I'm lazy. If
> > users want to protect their files : chmod 600 does the trick, and with a
> > 600 dir you'r safe.
> >
> > > I'm sorry, but I don't see that as a valid rationale.
> >
> > It doesn't make sense for normal users to have immutable / append only
> > privs.
>
> Yes it does. Virtual sites where you give admins control over their own
> section. They may want to chattr file(s) immutable or append only just incase
> one of their scripts develops a 'feature'.
>
> Users may also be instructing others in a classroom environment and don't need
> the hassle of students going around screwing up files but don't want to give
> their apprentices root authority.
>
> There are several reasons why it would be nice to have special flags avail to
> normal users.
>
> rm -rf <dir> removes a dir tree regardless of the modes applied to it if the user
> owns it. there's no protection there. chattr +i|a is an extra safegard that
> many people, myself included, enjoy for both user and root.

FWIW, I agree with this... so long as root has the ability to un-chattr
something a regular user does, I can't see what harm this could possibly
have.

-- 
PGP/GPG Public key at http://cerberus.ne.mediaone.net/~derek/pubkey.txt
------------------------------------------------------
Derek D. Martin      |  Unix/Linux Geek
derekm@mediaone.net  |  derek@cerberus.ne.mediaone.net
------------------------------------------------------

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 26 2000 - 21:00:06 EST