From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 2 16:51:56 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0055E16A4CE for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2004 16:51:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.seekingfire.com (coyote.seekingfire.com [24.72.10.212]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B196743D5A for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2004 16:51:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tillman@seekingfire.com) Received: by mail.seekingfire.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 1F17E2D6; Sat, 2 Oct 2004 10:51:55 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 10:51:55 -0600 From: Tillman Hodgson To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20041002165155.GP35869@seekingfire.com> References: <20041002081928.GA21439@gothmog.gr> <200410021123.59811.max@love2party.net> <20041002102430.Y5481@thor.farley.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041002102430.Y5481@thor.farley.org> X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . X-GPG-Key-ID: 828AFC7B X-GPG-Fingerprint: 5584 14BA C9EB 1524 0E68 F543 0F0A 7FBC 828A FC7B X-GPG-Key: http://www.seekingfire.com/gpg_key.asc X-Urban-Legend: There is lots of hidden information in headers User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Subject: Re: Protection from the dreaded "rm -fr /" X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 16:51:56 -0000 On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 10:42:16AM -0500, Sean Farley wrote: > Why not default on? root will not run 'rm -rf /' on purpose very often. > Once will be enough. :) Also, when and why would someone want to do > this? Exactly. Who would expect `rm -rf /` to actually succeed? It's not only dangerous, it doesn't work in a useful way ;-) If one is thinking about `rm -rf /`, `newfs` is probably the right answer. -T -- "I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!" -- Seen on Slashdot.org