Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ncoast.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!decwrl!decvax!cwruecmp!atvax!ncoast!bsa
From: bsa@ncoast.UUCP (The WITNESS)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: Is the restricted shell really secure?
Message-ID: <247@ncoast.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 11-Aug-84 19:34:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: ncoast.247
Posted: Sat Aug 11 19:34:06 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Aug-84 01:23:07 EDT
References: <275@pcsbst.UUCP> <990@inuxc.UUCP> <280@genrad.UUCP> <210@ncoast.UUCP> <41@rlgvax.UUCP>
Organization: North Coast XENIX, Cleveland
Lines: 20

I found out about it being in V7 just recently; the call is of the type that
Microsoft appeared to have added to the system in the interests of security,
so I made an assumption on insufficient data and it jumped back and bit me.
Unfortuantely, you just made an assumption too:  that we had source for Unix
(or so it appeared); Microsoft may make it available but Tandy touched this one
and I have yet to hear of their providing source.  (trsvax || microsoft please
correct me if I'm wrong.)

Just changing the protection & owner of .. is enough, I realized; and better
because root and the owner of the restricted filesystem can get out if necess-
ary.  I have already implemented a scheme using this to provide a tutorial
minisystem to attach to my pet software project.

Thanks for the replies, anyway, all; I am starting to learn something about
the system I've been using.
-- 
     Brandon Allbery: decvax!cwruecmp{!atvax}!bsafw: R0176@CSUOHIO.BITNET
	 6504 Chestnut Road, Independence, OH 44131 <> (216) 524-1416

"The more they overthink the plumbin', the easier 'tis tae stop up the drain."