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."