rm etc. (was: Nasty Security Hole?)

[Richard A. O'Keefe]

In article <8956 at smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn at brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
>In article <480 at auspex.UUCP> guy at auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris) writes:
>->A utility such as "rm" COULD perform extra checks based on the permissions
>-So does the System V Release 3.1 one, and, if I remember correctly, so
>-did the V7 and perhaps even the V6 one; one can hardly flame Berkeley
>-for this one.
>But I think it was Berkeley who decided to prompt with a completely
>misleading question!  I've known others who disliked this.

Hmm.  Let's compare 4.2BSD and V.2 on a Sequent:
	% cp /dev/null zabbo
	% chmod 000 zabbo
	% att rm zabbo
	zabbo: 0 mode ? n
	% bsd rm zabbo
	rm: override protection 0 for zabbo? n

What is "completely misleading" about that question?  The file does in
fact have mode/protection 0, and it is in fact rm which is asking me
whether I want its reluctance to delete the file overridden.  I always
found the Sys V prompt rather obscure, especially when you run a script
and the message pops up out of nowhere.  At least the BSD prompt follows
the convention of telling you which program is asking!