On 2006.10.30 21:31:51 +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Mon, 2006-Oct-30 19:38:49 +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote: > >the user is unaware that there are multiple links. I don't think > >that just unlinking the file and issuing a warning is a good solution > >because it's then virtually impossible to locate the other copy(s) > >of the file, which remains viewable. > > I missed the fact that the warning message includes the inode number. > My apologies. This reduces "virtually impossible" to "hard". > > I still think this current behaviour is undesirable and a security > hole. Maybe someone from the SO team would like to offer their > opinion - I might just have my tinfoil hat on too tight tonight.
<With hat "paranoid dude", and not any official FreeBSD hat - I don't care to think this through enough to say anything with a FreeBSD hat for the time being, on this topic> Personally I think rm should do what you ask it to do - if you ask it to overwrite a file which has multiple links, well... though luck. I guess rm exiting for antifootshoot without -f can be OK, that's still very visible to the user. What's currently in -CURRENT is probably a bad idea since you might end up with a file which you thought you had deleted, but in fact you haven't. That said, I wouldn't trust -P to _really_ remove the content of the files anyway, so personally I don't really care much. If you want the file to be gone, use encryption in the first place, or use apropriate tool (hammer, axe, C4, etc.). </> -- Simon L. Nielsen _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
