Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!chi-news.cic.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.tacom.army.mil!reason.cdrom.com!usenet From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@FreeBSD.org> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Problems with 2.2-960130-SNAP Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 02:32:21 -0800 Organization: Walnut Creek CDROM Lines: 12 Message-ID: <3121BA35.446B9B3D@FreeBSD.org> References: <ngsxXaw@quack.kfu.com> <4fprr7$oq8@godzilla.zeta.org.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: time.cdrom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.1-STABLE i386) Bruce Evans wrote: > Yes. See the chflags man page and the output of `ls -lo /sbin'. ld.so > and a few other files should also have been protected againsts removal > by ordinary rm. Of course, `mv /sbin /sbin-' shows that this protection > is worthless. Good point. A `chflags schg /' might also not be a bad idea for the truly security conscious, or is Bruce now going to show me how that's useless too? :-) -- - Jordan Hubbard President, FreeBSD Project