meetkaustubhghosh@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> Let us consider a
> situation where a employee is to complete a report within a date .He
> didnot send it ,but later he just shifts the system date backwords,
> saves the file in the backward date and shows that he has completed
> the job in time.
Or, more simply, he just uses the touch command. This doesn't even need
root access.
Andre Speelmans commented:
> I can't help you with your quetsion, but it seems to me a better way to change
> your procedures instead of your filesystem.
Good advice!
> Let me explain.
>
> Clearly you don't trust the user. I assume it is required for him to have the
> privileges to change the date on the system (if he doesn't need them, strip
> them and your problem is solved).
Well ... no. Not unless you can stop him from running touch or something
like it. (Careful review of permissions, filesystems, and the noexec
keyword can make this practical. But it's still not a good idea.)
> If you don't trust the user, why not change your procedure so that a report is
> completed when it is on the system *and* he has notified his manager. His
> manager can verify the existance of the report.
Or when he has sent it by e-mail to his manager.
Does it really matter if the report isn't completed by a point in time
if the manager only looks at it later and it's finished then?
If no-one looks at a report, does it really exist?
James.
--
E-mail address: james | Things have never been the same since my arch enemy,
@westexe.demon.co.uk | due to a slight clerical error, put a price on my
| shed.
| -- Jim
