From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3BB89647.BD039EE5@zip.com.au> From: Matthew Hannigan MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: permissions idea (Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses) References: <20010928010622.17297199E7@mail.cse.psu.edu> <069401c14804$21ca9c40$a2b9c6d4@SOMA> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 18:13:59 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: f95c12de-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 Fantastic read. One of the most interesting bits for me was reading x permissions described as not really permissions at all, which is what I've always thought. Nice to see it repeated by a more learned person. My answer to this would have been to remove them entirely, not elevate them to a certificate of trust though? (thinks bubble) maybe we reassign the bits meaning: instead of rwxrwxrwx perhaps we could have rwrwrwrwx where the doubles are for owner, writing group, reading group, trustable. 4 groups covers 99+44/99 possibilities. no need for icky acls ... Now all I have to do is solve on disk compatibility... -Matt PS. sorry if all this is solved by plan9 .. I confess I haven't installed it yet! Boyd Roberts wrote: > > > http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/tdvirus.pdf > > i love the scan. i know that i'd read it, i just can't think how. > > paul vixie changed gatekeeper's kernel in '92/93 so that only root > could set the public execute bit as a form of certification, which > duff speaks of. of course, this was just glue but nevertheless a > clever, easy to implement and efficient hack.