4 ms·
ROX isn't self-contradictory, Allowing read() and execve(), but denying write() and truncate() are totally valid and common in secure execution contexts, althou
by Zoup 2y ago
ROX isn't self-contradictory, Allowing read() and execve(), but denying write() and truncate() are totally valid and common in secure execution contexts, although things gets worse with directory traverse.
So yeah, --rox is fine semantically, just ugly. :D
- zahlman 2y agoI mean that it is not "read-only" if it is also executable.
- teo_zero 2y agoI think the parent poster was not arguing that allowing this combination of accesses is invalid, just that it can't be called read-ONLY if it's not ONLY read. "Any color the customer wants, as long as it's black"