rm etc. (was: Nasty Security Hole?)

[Richard A. O'Keefe]

In article <13193 at ncoast.UUCP> allbery at ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) writes:
>As quoted from <730 at quintus.UUCP> by ok at quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe):
>| 	% att rm zabbo
>| 	zabbo: 0 mode ? n
>| 	% bsd rm zabbo
>| 	rm: override protection 0 for zabbo? n
>If UUNET is any guide, V.2 on Sequents isn't.
>	$ >foo ; chmod 0 foo ; rm foo
>	rm: remove foo? n
>
>I've seen the above on quite a few systems of V.2, V.3, and Xenix 5.x
>persuasions.

UNIX System V/386 Release 3.0 80386 says
	foo: 0 mode ?
just like the Sequent.  There is more reason to doubt UUNET:  the SVID
clearly and explicitly states in RM(BU_CMD) that
	If a file has no write permission
	and the standard input is a terminal,
	its [presumably the file's] permissions are printed
	and a line is read from the standard input.
Something which purports to be V.2 "rm" ought to obey the SVID and
print the permissions *somehow* (though the SVID doesn't specify a
format).

Internationalisation will be a great opportunity to tidy this up.