> I think you have the answer. Someone would have to gain access into > your system, and having done so, what would be the point of > "sabotaging" something within universe to do something malicious? They > already have access to your system. If it's someone internal, then I > would imagine your hiring practices should be reviewed.
1. Of course, that would be after-the-fact. Anyone who looks at comp.databases.pick every once in a while can think of someone . . . nope, ain't gonna go there! 2. "An honest man does not ask you to trust him." I like being shut out of where I don't belong. I put that proverb in quotes, cuz it's not mine but I don't know where it came from. 3. Wouldn't IBM like to be able to claim that a UV application can be made secure? 4. This list had an example of something similar about a week or so ago tangent to the thread about deciphering/decompiling a convoluted basic code snippet. > Having said > that, this would be a relatively easy fix to the code that > reads/updates the catdir entry - though doing so you would lose access > to that information via MAP. What if it updated - a sister table? - via a root/uvadm daemon? or - via a root/uvadm-owned executable with sticky bit set? But maybe that invalidates the "relatively easy" comment. cds ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
