From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: cowan@mercury.ccil.org (John Cowan) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 02:05:43 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] History of chown semantics In-Reply-To: <8F58DE51-60E5-4E41-AAEF-78CAC3C08DBC@tfeb.org> References: <20140109191336.GD24304@mercury.ccil.org> <5128EE1B-28A2-4D5E-AE32-BEC6652DF1A1@tfeb.org> <20140110171819.GA14513@mercury.ccil.org> <8F58DE51-60E5-4E41-AAEF-78CAC3C08DBC@tfeb.org> Message-ID: <20140113070543.GC22593@mercury.ccil.org> Tim Bradshaw scripsit: > Quotas actually don't seem to be used very much. Instead people > Greenspun it by confining applications to distinct filesystems and > some kind of volume manager. Which is to say, the file owner is irrelevant to the quota system, only the pathname matters. > Privilege separation is more sorted out. People (regulators, auditors, > the organisation itself) are extremely interested in knowing who can > see and do what. Root access seems to be typically pretty sorted by now > (no-one has it except under some kind of auditable breakglass process) > and controlling per-user access is getting tied down where it hasn't > been, usually by elaborate sudo rules for the various role users > (unix admin, oracle admin, business users etc). Again, how can any of this be corrupted by free chown-ing? -- Some people open all the Windows; John Cowan wise wives welcome the spring cowan at ccil.org by moving the Unix. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --ad for Unix Book Units (U.K.) (see http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/unix3image.gif)