On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, David Wolfskill wrote:
>>Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:34:08 +0600 (NOVT)
>>From: "Maxim M. Kazachek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> So, imagine, i'm accidentally deleted /bin with your most wanted
>>static sh... And, of course, due to static nature of /bin/sh it was
>>removed from /rescue? Nothing will protect you from shooting in the leg,
>>neither static linking, nor assumption that /lib is OK.
>
>So go ahead and make /bin/sh also have a (hard) link to /rescue/sh.
>Then the referenced action merely decrements the link count, and the
>executable itself doesn't go away.
>
>Sure, you could be more imaginative with foot-shooting, but the stated
>problem is really easy to avoid.
>
>Peace,
>david (reluctant to contribute to this thread....)
>--
>David H. Wolfskill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>If you want true virus-protection for your PC, install a non-Microsoft OS
>on it. Plausible candidates include FreeBSD, Linux, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and
>Solaris (in alphabetical order).
I'm a real masochist, and removed /rescue/sh /sbin/sh whatsoever.
And after that will begin complain, that FreeBSD is ugly, non bullet-proof
operating system... :-)
But, in fact, as I can remember, all /rescue stuff is one
hadlinked executable. I don't think that hardlinking /bin/sh into /rescue
would be nice idea... IMHO it's not clear.
Sincerely, Maxim M. Kazachek
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
