Subject: Re: /rescue, crunchgen'ed?
To: None <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
From: Johnny Billquist <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/30/2002 14:44:43
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > Johnny Billquist wrote:
> > > A big danger is accidental overwriting.
> > Overwriting of /rescue? Uhm...
> > Yes, that's possible.
> So is overwriting of /bin/sh with /bin/rm.
> These are all rather pointless mind games, they don't really make anything
> more or less safe.
You are oversimplifying things. I'm not talking about stupid user
overwriting a file with something else (even though that, too, is a
possibility). I'm talking about corrupt file systems, which individual
blocks within a file might be overwritten.
And in both cases, two different files are more robust than a single
file. It's the same story as with everything depending on libc at runtime
(or any other single point of failure).
If you don't agree that a single point of failure makes things less safe
I'm sure NASA would be interested in hearing about your deductive
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: email@example.com || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol