Subject: Re: forbidding rm -rf /
To: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Christos Zoulas <email@example.com>
Date: 10/05/2004 20:34:52
On Oct 5, 5:10pm, firstname.lastname@example.org (Greywolf) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: forbidding rm -rf /
| [Thus spake Hubert Feyrer ("HF: ") Tomorrow...]
| HF: On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| HF: >> Solaris 10 doesn't allow "rm -rf /" -- should we do the same?
| HF: > What next? Forbidding 'cd / && rm -rf *'?
| HF: I wonder if we could give some systrace examples for that...
| HF: - Hubert
| This ranks right up there with their escapades into SunOS 4 in which
| if any of libc.so*, ld.so, or /dev/zero disappeared, most programs
| would stop working, as most of them were dynamically linked. No,
| I've already ranted on dynalinking in /bin and /sbin, so I won't
| do it here.
| But if you lose /dev/zero through a mistake, and mknod lived in /usr/sbin,
| and /usr/sbin/mknod was dynamically linked, well...
| [Yes, I commented on that in the blog. What a mind-numbingly STUPID
| pretense for a hack.]
Actually there is /email@example.com which beats all of them.