I blame Redhat too.......for sleeping with my wife!!!!!!!!1
----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 2:01 PM Subject: Re: The "rm" command and non root users > Sorry but I just can't help replying to this one, but how can you say > that you're a very competent UNIX and PC System ADMIN when you were lazy > enough to check out simple things like the sticky bit. I doubt you even > knew about that sticky bit and blamed it on Red Hat. > > His reply to you was just appropriate, for someone who brags he knows sh*t. > > Rend, Jon (Jon) % wrote: > > Lets drop it ALL, it's getting boring. > > > > My mistake, was being lazy and of course forgetting about the Sticky Bit > > impact. > > > > Big Bobs, well I think he knows his mistake. > > > > Jon > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Robert P. J. Day [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 12:34 PM > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > Subject: Re: The "rm" command and non root users > > > > > > > > you know, before everyone starts psychoanalyzing my interpersonal > > skills, a small observation on what really griped my wagger about the > > original post: > > > > On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Rend, Jon (Jon) % wrote: > > > > > >>I am new to RED-HAT Linux but I was amazed at this behavior and can't find > >>anything on it. > > > > > > this is well documented in a number of places, but that's not the issue > > here. > > > > > >>I created some dummy files as/owned by root on my WS with only "r" > >>permission bit set for group and world. Then I logged into the same box as > > > > a > > > >>dumb test user with no privileges and used "rm" to remove the file and god > >>damn it I was given the option to remove the "write protected file" > > > > ^^^^^^^^^ > > > > i see no compelling reason for vulgarity in a simple post -- that was > > social faux pas number one. > > > > > >>How do you turn this off, do I have to use the non GNU "rm". Anyone help > > > > ??? > > > > and *this* suggests that something is somehow misconfigured when, in fact, > > the command is doing exactly what it's supposed to. but wait ... there's > > more. > > > > as most of you know, the "sticky bit" on directories is used to *prevent* > > exactly this kind of behavior: > > > > $ ls -ld /tmp > > drwxrwxrwt > > > > this means that, while anyone can *create* a file in /tmp, only root or > > the owner can remove it. > > > > the fact that the original poster could create a file as root, and remove > > it as a "dumb test user" means he must have either modified an existing > > directory and removed its sticky bit, or created a new directory with > > perms 777. in short, what he is describing could *not* have happened > > on a standard red hat install. i just had one of my students do a > > > > # find / -type d -perm 777 > > > > and it found only one match -- a hidden directory under /tmp. therefore, > > i am concluding that the original poster either "chmod"ed an existing > > directory to remove its sticky bit, or created a new directory with > > notoriously dangerous perms of 777 -- neither of which he admitted to > > in his posting. > > > > quite simply, i'm convinced that what he is describing could not have > > happened on a standard RH install without some help from him. if i'm > > wrong, then mea culpa. > > > > we now return you to your regular frothing at the mouth. > > > > rday > > > > > > > > > > -- > redhat-list mailing list > unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
