Re: [off list] Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific]

On Tue 22 Nov 2016 at 17:51:56 +, Brian wrote: > On Tue 22 Nov 2016 at 08:38:55 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > > > On 11/21/2016 11:15 AM, David Wright wrote: > > >Disclaimer: I have no idea what the subject of this thread is about. > > > > > > If I was going on only on the responses to my

Re: [off list] Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific]

On Tue 22 Nov 2016 at 08:38:55 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 11/21/2016 11:15 AM, David Wright wrote: > >Disclaimer: I have no idea what the subject of this thread is about. > > > If I was going on only on the responses to my post starting this sub-thread > I would wonder myself ;/

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 09:38:04AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 11/22/2016 9:16 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote: > >Intermediary agents to mount file systems on behalf of an end user > >generally fall into two categories: > > > > * Automounters. > See above. Do you mean THIS PART? > >>>differs by

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On Tuesday 22 November 2016 15:38:04 Richard Owlett wrote: > On 11/22/2016 9:16 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 09:09:01AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > >> On 11/21/2016 12:43 PM, Joe wrote: > >>> While this does not actually constitute automounting, I suggest that it > >>>

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On 11/22/2016 9:16 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote: On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 09:09:01AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: On 11/21/2016 12:43 PM, Joe wrote: While this does not actually constitute automounting, I suggest that it differs by a single mouse click. And actually, I didn't deduce that

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 09:09:01AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 11/21/2016 12:43 PM, Joe wrote: > >While this does not actually constitute automounting, I suggest that it > >differs by a single mouse click. And actually, I didn't deduce that > >automounting was what the OP wanted, > > It is

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On 11/21/2016 12:43 PM, Joe wrote: [snip] While this does not actually constitute automounting, I suggest that it differs by a single mouse click. And actually, I didn't deduce that automounting was what the OP wanted, It is explicitly what I do not want. I said in

[off list] Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific]

On 11/21/2016 11:15 AM, David Wright wrote: Disclaimer: I have no idea what the subject of this thread is about. If I was going on only on the responses to my post starting this sub-thread I would wonder myself ;/ [snip] Well, I know what my expectations are: to see an idiosyncratic

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On Monday, November 21, 2016 02:39:04 PM Brian wrote: > On Mon 21 Nov 2016 at 18:43:20 +, Joe wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:36:19 + > > > > Brian wrote: > > > Someone deduced "He wants auto-mounting of the inserted media". The > > > evidence isn't there. Putting

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On Mon 21 Nov 2016 at 18:43:20 +, Joe wrote: > On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:36:19 + > Brian wrote: > > > Someone deduced "He wants auto-mounting of the inserted media". The > > evidence isn't there. Putting one's self in the a user's position is > > one thing; putting

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:36:19 + Brian wrote: > On Mon 21 Nov 2016 at 18:18:27 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 04:37:50PM +, Brian wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > I cannot recollect or find any mention of the OP wanting to > > >

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On Mon 21 Nov 2016 at 18:18:27 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 04:37:50PM +, Brian wrote: > > [...] > > > I cannot recollect or find any mention of the OP wanting to automount. > > Not explicitly, sure. The point is, it was implicitly expected, because > for the

Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific]

Well, when the OP writes "sane" he does not mean sane the program, but > > > rather that he wants reasonable or rational file permissions (see > > > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sane#Adjective ). > > > > I think, unfortunately, he actually means "

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 04:37:50PM +, Brian wrote: [...] > I cannot recollect or find any mention of the OP wanting to automount. Not explicitly, sure. The point is, it was implicitly expected, because for the OP, it's the "normal" thing. It

Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific]

On Monday, November 21, 2016 11:25:13 AM Brian wrote: > On Mon 21 Nov 2016 at 10:37:33 -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > > On my Jessie system, neither pmount nor udisks is installed, but udisks2 > > apparently is, and I suspect it is what provides that functionality on > > Jessie. There does not

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On Mon 21 Nov 2016 at 15:13:02 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 02:08:09PM +, Darac Marjal wrote: > > [...] > > > >https://www.axllent.org/docs/view/auto-mounting-usb-storage/ shows > > >a set of udev rules that will mount a vfat or ntfs USB stick to > >

Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific]

On Mon 21 Nov 2016 at 10:37:33 -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > On my Jessie system, neither pmount nor udisks is installed, but udisks2 > apparently is, and I suspect it is what provides that functionality on > Jessie. > There does not seem to be a =udisks2 --dump= function. udisksctl

Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific]

On Monday, November 21, 2016 09:11:21 AM to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 08:34:42AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 01:26:45PM +, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote: > > 1) He wants auto-mounting of the inserted media, in the manner of > > Microsoft > > > >

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 02:08:09PM +, Darac Marjal wrote: [...] > >https://www.axllent.org/docs/view/auto-mounting-usb-storage/ shows > >a set of udev rules that will mount a vfat or ntfs USB stick to > >"/media/${File System ID or Label}", AND

Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific]

that he wants reasonable or rational file permissions (see > > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sane#Adjective ). > > I think, unfortunately, he actually means "I know what I want, and you > should know what I want, and I shouldn't have to explicitly say what > I wants, because

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 01:53:25PM +, Darac Marjal wrote: On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 08:18:39AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:51:58PM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: I use fat16 and fat32 formatted USB flash drives When I plug one into my Debian machine I want totally

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 08:18:39AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:51:58PM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: I use fat16 and fat32 formatted USB flash drives When I plug one into my Debian machine I want totally unfettered read/write access. [when logged in as root or *ANY*

Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific]

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 01:26:45PM +, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote: > Well, when the OP writes "sane" he does not mean sane the program, but > rather that he wants reasonable or rational file permissions (see > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sane#Adjective ). I think

Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific]

permissions or USB key file permissions. It is *not* about SANE. :-(( Well, when the OP writes "sane" he does not mean sane the program, but rather that he wants reasonable or rational file permissions (see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sane#Adjective ). It's true that the subject

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:51:58PM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > I use fat16 and fat32 formatted USB flash drives > When I plug one into my Debian machine I want totally unfettered > read/write access. > [when logged in as root or *ANY* user ID] You can't. You have to be root to mount one of

Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific]

nothing *whatsoever* to do with SANE. :-( It is about file permissions or USB key file permissions. It is *not* about SANE. :-(( And it is obviously DE relevant anyway. Lisi Richard - Google "SANE" and "linux"

Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific]

On Sun 20 Nov 2016 at 14:25:16 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 11/19/2016 12:51 PM, Richard Owlett wrote: > >I use fat16 and fat32 formatted USB flash drives for _EXACTLY_ > >*ONE* purpose. > >It is to transfer data to/from a Windows machine. > >There is NO [nor will there ever be] a network

MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific]

On 11/19/2016 12:51 PM, Richard Owlett wrote: I use fat16 and fat32 formatted USB flash drives for _EXACTLY_ *ONE* purpose. It is to transfer data to/from a Windows machine. There is NO [nor will there ever be] a network connection between them. When I plug one into my Debian machine I want

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

Le decadi 30 brumaire, an CCXXV, Joe a écrit : > Conceptually so, but some means of mounting USB sticks do not involve > the user explicitly issuing a mount command. Yet, eventually it involves mount and options. The OP's task now is to find out what system is used to automagically mount USB

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On Sun 20 Nov 2016 at 19:41:59 +, Joe wrote: > On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 19:45:27 +0100 > Nicolas George wrote: > > > Le decadi 30 brumaire, an CCXXV, Joe a écrit : > > > Tomas' answer contains *a* solution, for a specific device. > > > > Tomas' answer points to the umask

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 19:45:27 +0100 Nicolas George wrote: > Le decadi 30 brumaire, an CCXXV, Joe a écrit : > > Tomas' answer contains *a* solution, for a specific device. > > Tomas' answer points to the umask mount option. Since all current > reasonable methods for accessing

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

Le decadi 30 brumaire, an CCXXV, Joe a écrit : > Tomas' answer contains *a* solution, for a specific device. Tomas' answer points to the umask mount option. Since all current reasonable methods for accessing an USB stick in FAT end up using the mount system call, it is THE solution. Regards,

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 12:19:49PM -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2016-11-20 at 11:46, Joe wrote: > > > On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 15:14:47 +0100 wrote: > > >> Sorry I can't offer more details: I'm not "in" the intricacies of > >>

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On Sun 20 Nov 2016 at 13:58:04 +, Joe wrote: > I'm running sid with systemd, with absolutely nothing in /etc/fstab > which refers to USB sticks, but nonetheless any USB stick inserted is > recognised and automounted under /media/joe (maybe immediately and maybe > on access, I'm not sure, but

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On Sun 20 Nov 2016 at 07:40:17 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 11/20/2016 7:29 AM, Brian wrote: > > > >Doesn't pmount fit the bill if all you want is to read/write? > > No. > > Maybe the problem is D.E. specific? I'm using MATE and thus Caja as > file-manager. TBH, the problem as such isn't

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On 2016-11-20 at 11:46, Joe wrote: > On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 15:14:47 +0100 wrote: >> Sorry I can't offer more details: I'm not "in" the intricacies of >> desktop environments. For me, they are too intricate and finicky, >> therefore I prefer to run without. >> >> I mount my

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 15:14:47 +0100 wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 01:58:04PM +, Joe wrote: > > On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 13:33:51 +0100 > > Nicolas George wrote: > > > > > Le decadi 30 brumaire, an CCXXV,

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 08:10:09 -0600 Richard Owlett wrote: > Do you have a file named "pmount.allow"? > Web searches turn up references to it, but haven't found any > details on syntax and/or examples. > > > I don't have pmount installed. I tried it years ago, when I was

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 10:15:40AM -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > Ok, I tried it on Jessie, and it works essentially the same way, with a few > slight differences: > >* when the USB stick shows up in dolphin, it does not show the mount >

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

Ok, I tried it on Jessie, and it works essentially the same way, with a few slight differences: * when the USB stick shows up in dolphin, it does not show the mount point, instead it says something like "Removable 8MiB device" * if I then go to a CLI and look under media, I find the

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On Sun 20 Nov 2016 at 08:10:09 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 11/20/2016 7:58 AM, Joe wrote: > > > >This all Just Works, and I have no idea what configuration it depends > >on. "I didn't build this," sid basically builds and rebuilds itself, so > >I tend to keep my fingers out of the works. I

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

I'll answer with something a little bit like Joe's answer. On my daily working machine, which uses Wheezy, I use Dophin as a file manager. After I plug in a USB stick, after a few seconds (maybe up to 20??), a new entry appears on the left hand list of partitions in Dolphin. If I click on

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 06:08:51AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 11/19/2016 2:33 PM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: [mount options, fstab] > Those don't address my problem definition. > Having a USB flash drive with a fat16/fat32 file system in hand,

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 01:58:04PM +, Joe wrote: > On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 13:33:51 +0100 > Nicolas George wrote: > > > Le decadi 30 brumaire, an CCXXV, Richard Owlett a écrit : > > > Not as I read them. > > > > Then you did not

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On 11/20/2016 7:58 AM, Joe wrote: On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 13:33:51 +0100 Nicolas George wrote: Le decadi 30 brumaire, an CCXXV, Richard Owlett a écrit : Not as I read them. Then you did not read correctly. They give methods of handling an explicitly specified device.

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 13:33:51 +0100 Nicolas George wrote: > Le decadi 30 brumaire, an CCXXV, Richard Owlett a écrit : > > Not as I read them. > > Then you did not read correctly. > > > They give methods of handling an explicitly specified device. > > Tomas' answer contains

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On 11/20/2016 7:29 AM, Brian wrote: On Sat 19 Nov 2016 at 19:51:06 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: On 11/19/2016 5:07 PM, Brian wrote: On Sat 19 Nov 2016 at 12:51:58 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: I use fat16 and fat32 formatted USB flash drives for _EXACTLY_ *ONE* purpose. It is to transfer

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On Sat 19 Nov 2016 at 19:51:06 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 11/19/2016 5:07 PM, Brian wrote: > >On Sat 19 Nov 2016 at 12:51:58 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > > > >>I use fat16 and fat32 formatted USB flash drives for _EXACTLY_ *ONE* > >>purpose. > >>It is to transfer data to/from a Windows

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

option when mounting the file system. Umask is supposed to be the bits *not* to set in the file permissions. That would be mount /dev/foo mnt -oumask=000 That works for an explicit value of "foo". Maybe the problem is D.E. specific? I'm using MATE and thus Caja as file-manager. On

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

Le decadi 30 brumaire, an CCXXV, Richard Owlett a écrit : > Not as I read them. Then you did not read correctly. > They give methods of handling an explicitly specified device. Tomas' answer contains the solution to your problem: the umask mount option. This it, no more no less. To know how to

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On 11/20/2016 6:11 AM, Nicolas George wrote: Le decadi 30 brumaire, an CCXXV, Richard Owlett a écrit : Those don't address my problem definition. Yes, they do. Tomas' answer was exactly the correct one to your problem. Not as I read them. They give methods of handling an explicitly

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

Le decadi 30 brumaire, an CCXXV, Richard Owlett a écrit : > Those don't address my problem definition. Yes, they do. Tomas' answer was exactly the correct one to your problem. -- Nicolas George signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

tem. Umask is supposed to be the bits *not* to set in the file permissions. That would be mount /dev/foo mnt -oumask=000 (of course just 0 would suffice. Old rituals and that ;-) For more options, you separate them with comma, like so mount /dev/foo mnt -ouid=richard,gid=richard

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On 11/19/2016 5:07 PM, Brian wrote: On Sat 19 Nov 2016 at 12:51:58 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: I use fat16 and fat32 formatted USB flash drives for _EXACTLY_ *ONE* purpose. It is to transfer data to/from a Windows machine. There is NO [nor will there ever be] a network connection between

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

On Sat 19 Nov 2016 at 12:51:58 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > I use fat16 and fat32 formatted USB flash drives for _EXACTLY_ *ONE* > purpose. > It is to transfer data to/from a Windows machine. > There is NO [nor will there ever be] a network connection between them. No connection to the

Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

when mounting the file system. Umask is supposed to be the bits *not* to set in the file permissions. That would be mount /dev/foo mnt -oumask=000 (of course just 0 would suffice. Old rituals and that ;-) For more options, you separate them with comma, like so mount /dev/foo mnt -ouid=richard,gi

Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

I use fat16 and fat32 formatted USB flash drives for _EXACTLY_ *ONE* purpose. It is to transfer data to/from a Windows machine. There is NO [nor will there ever be] a network connection between them. When I plug one into my Debian machine I want totally unfettered read/write access. [when

Re: strange journald *.journal file permissions

On 2015-07-09 02:43:25 +0200, Christian Seiler wrote: What would be interesting to see is the following: - remove the executable bit in the mask (= group permission bit since the files use ACLs) on those files - reboot - see if the bit is set again The x bit is re-added after reboot.

Re: strange journald *.journal file permissions

On 2015-07-07 13:35:00 +0200, Christian Seiler wrote: Am 2015-07-05 13:03, schrieb Vincent Lefevre: Can anyone explain these strange journald permissions? -rw-r-x---+ 1 root root16777216 2015-07-05 12:57:55 system.journal* -rw-r-x---+ 1 root systemd-journal 8388608 2015-07-05

Re: strange journald *.journal file permissions

Am 2015-07-08 16:42, schrieb Vincent Lefevre: On 2015-07-07 13:35:00 +0200, Christian Seiler wrote: Am 2015-07-05 13:03, schrieb Vincent Lefevre: Can anyone explain these strange journald permissions? -rw-r-x---+ 1 root root16777216 2015-07-05 12:57:55 system.journal* -rw-r-x---+ 1

Re: strange journald *.journal file permissions

On 2015-07-08 17:23:37 +0200, Christian Seiler wrote: Are you sure you never used setfacl? Yes, I'm sure. Because your files have ACLs (as seen by the + sign next to the mode), but systemd-journald by default only uses normal permissions (at least under Jessie); FYI, I installed Jessie then

Re: strange journald *.journal file permissions

On 07/09/2015 12:17 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: FYI, I installed Jessie then upgraded to unstable. Ah, that explains it, see below: grep -r var/log/journal {/etc,/usr/lib}/tmpfiles.d /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/systemd.conf:z /var/log/journal 2755 root systemd-journal - -

Re: strange journald *.journal file permissions

Am 2015-07-05 13:03, schrieb Vincent Lefevre: Can anyone explain these strange journald permissions? -rw-r-x---+ 1 root root16777216 2015-07-05 12:57:55 system.journal* -rw-r-x---+ 1 root systemd-journal 8388608 2015-07-05 12:17:21 user-1000.journal* More precisely, why the bit x

Re: strange journald *.journal file permissions

On Sun 05 Jul 2015 at 13:03:25 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: Can anyone explain these strange journald permissions? -rw-r-x---+ 1 root root16777216 2015-07-05 12:57:55 system.journal* -rw-r-x---+ 1 root systemd-journal 8388608 2015-07-05 12:17:21 user-1000.journal* More

strange journald *.journal file permissions

Can anyone explain these strange journald permissions? -rw-r-x---+ 1 root root16777216 2015-07-05 12:57:55 system.journal* -rw-r-x---+ 1 root systemd-journal 8388608 2015-07-05 12:17:21 user-1000.journal* More precisely, why the bit x for the group? -- Vincent Lefèvre

Re: Apache File permissions /var/www/

El Sun, 10 Aug 2014 00:50:38 -0500, Juan Pablo Jaramillo Pineda escribió: Buenas noches lista, Leyendo un poco en la Wiki de Debian me encuentro con lo siguiente[1]: For historical reasons, the Apache runs as a user named www-data. This is somewhat misleading since normally, the files in

Re: Apache File permissions /var/www/

El domingo, 10 ago 2014 a las 07:50 horas (UTC+2), Juan Pablo Jaramillo Pineda escribió: Buenas noches lista, Leyendo un poco en la Wiki de Debian me encuentro con lo siguiente[1]: For historical reasons, the Apache runs as a user named www-data. This is somewhat misleading since normally, the

Re: Apache File permissions /var/www/

El domingo, 10 ago 2014 a las 12:38 horas (UTC+2), Camaleón escribió: El Sun, 10 Aug 2014 00:50:38 -0500, Juan Pablo Jaramillo Pineda escribió: Buenas noches lista, Leyendo un poco en la Wiki de Debian me encuentro con lo siguiente[1]: For historical reasons, the Apache runs as a user

Re: Apache File permissions /var/www/

El domingo, 10 ago 2014 a las 16:26 horas (UTC+2), Manolo Díaz escribió: El domingo, 10 ago 2014 a las 07:50 horas (UTC+2), Juan Pablo Jaramillo Pineda escribió: Buenas noches lista, Leyendo un poco en la Wiki de Debian me encuentro con lo siguiente[1]: For historical reasons, the Apache runs

Apache File permissions /var/www/

Buenas noches lista, Leyendo un poco en la Wiki de Debian me encuentro con lo siguiente[1]: For historical reasons, the Apache runs as a user named www-data. This is somewhat misleading since normally, the files in the ?DocumentRoot (/var/www) should not be owned or writable by that user

dealing with bad file permissions.

Hi there!! I have in my machine a directory that has the value of '000' as its permissions and even when I switch to the root account (using the 'su' command), I'm not able to 'chown' it nor to 'chmod' it nor to delete it. so my question is simply how can I deal with such a directory or file?

Re: dealing with bad file permissions.

On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 17:17:59 +0200 atar atar.yo...@gmail.com wrote: Hi there!! I have in my machine a directory that has the value of '000' as its permissions and even when I switch to the root account (using the 'su' command), I'm not able to 'chown' it nor to 'chmod' it nor to delete

Re: dealing with bad file permissions.

atar wrote: I have in my machine a directory that has the value of '000' as its permissions and even when I switch to the root account (using the 'su' command), I'm not able to 'chown' it nor to 'chmod' it nor to delete it. so my question is simply how can I deal with such a directory or

dealing with bad file permissions.

Hi there!! I have in my machine a directory that has the value of '000' as its permissions and even when I switch to the root account (using the 'su' command), I'm not able to 'chown' it nor to 'chmod' it nor to delete it. so my question is simply how can I deal with such a directory or

Re: dealing with bad file permissions.

atar atar.yo...@gmail.com writes: Hi there!! I have in my machine a directory that has the value of '000' as its permissions and even when I switch to the root account (using the 'su' command), I'm not able to 'chown' it nor to 'chmod' it nor to delete it. so my question is simply how can

Re: dealing with bad file permissions.

atar wrote: I have in my machine a directory that has the value of '000' as its permissions and even when I switch to the root account (using the 'su' command), I'm not able to 'chown' it nor to 'chmod' it nor to delete it. so my question is simply how can I deal with such a directory or

Re: cron file permissions

Hi Bob, On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 04:32:03PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: Mike McClain wrote: I've a cron job run daily from /etc/crontab, Instead of using the BSD-style interface let me strongly encourage you to start using the newer Vixie-cron-style interface of /etc/cron.d/ where they

Re: cron file permissions

Mike McClain wrote: ... and haven't seen any way to get files in /etc/cron.d/ run at specific times. The format of the /etc/cron.d/ files is the same format as the /etc/crontab. Whatever lines you would put into /etc/crontab you would simply put into a file in /etc/cron.d instead. No

Re: cron file permissions

Bob Proulx wrote: # Run mylocalscript every hour. 0 17 * * * root /usr/local/bin/mylocalscript That is what I get for constructing an example in a rush. Obviously that comment doesn't match. Oh well. You get the idea. Bob signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: cron file permissions

Hi Bob, OK I'll try it but have a question. On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 01:28:04PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: Mike McClain wrote: ... and haven't seen any way to get files in /etc/cron.d/ run at specific times. The format of the /etc/cron.d/ files is the same format as the /etc/crontab.

Re: cron file permissions

Mike McClain wrote: man cron says: 'In general, the admin should not use /etc/cron.d/, but use the standard system crontab /etc/crontab.' I can only most strongly disagree with that sentiment! :-) I hadn't ever seen that message before. Considering the fact that Paul Vixie hasn't released

Re: cron file permissions

Mike McClain mike.j...@nethere.com wrote: /mc/bin/daily sets umask umask 037 # save files rw owner, group read only then runs a script like so: [ -e /mc/bin/secure ] /mc/bin/secure 21 | tee /root/sysstats/secure.log You want the output to go to the cron email as well

Re: cron file permissions

Hi Chris, On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:06:33PM +0100, Chris Davies wrote: Mike McClain mike.j...@nethere.com wrote: /mc/bin/daily sets umask umask 037 # save files rw owner, group read only then runs a script like so: [ -e /mc/bin/secure ] /mc/bin/secure 21 | tee

cron file permissions

Howdy, I've a cron job run daily from /etc/crontab, the entry looks like this: 0 2 * * * root[ -d /mc/bin ] /mc/bin/daily; /mc/bin/daily sets umask umask 037 # save files rw owner, group read only then runs a script like so: [ -e /mc/bin/secure ]

Re: cron file permissions

Mike McClain wrote: I've a cron job run daily from /etc/crontab, Instead of using the BSD-style interface let me strongly encourage you to start using the newer Vixie-cron-style interface of /etc/cron.d/ where they can be separate and individual files. That way the file can be dropped into

Re: hearse configuration problem - file permissions

Using chmod the first digit would be a 7 and the third digit a 5 but what would rws be for that second digit? On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Bob Proulx wrote: David Jardine wrote: Jude DaShiell wrote: jude@md:~$ sudo ls -l /var/games/nethack total 20 drwxr-sr-x 2 root games 4096 Jul 10 07:43

Re: hearse configuration problem - file permissions

Jude DaShiell wrote: The setgid is normal. But your permissions on the directory have been corrupted. You could probably fix the permissions. Or purge and re-install but that would of course lose any of your saved games. Using chmod the first digit would be a 7 and the third digit a 5

hearse configuration problem - file permissions

Script started on Mon 11 Jul 2011 05:27:38 AM EDT jude@md:~$ ls -l -dl /var/games/nethack d-wx-ws--x 5 root games 4096 Jul 10 08:13 /var/games/nethack jude@md:~$ ls -l /var/games/nethack ls: cannot open directory /var/games/nethack: Permission denied jude@md:~$ sudo ls

Re: hearse configuration problem - file permissions

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 05:30:38AM -0400, Jude DaShiell wrote: Script started on Mon 11 Jul 2011 05:27:38 AM EDT jude@md:~$ ls -l -dl /var/games/nethack d-wx-ws--x 5 root games 4096 Jul 10 08:13 /var/games/nethack jude@md:~$ ls -l /var/games/nethack ls: cannot open

Re: hearse configuration problem - file permissions

David Jardine wrote: Jude DaShiell wrote: jude@md:~$ sudo ls -l /var/games/nethack total 20 drwxr-sr-x 2 root games 4096 Jul 10 07:43 bones It looks as if you don't have read permission on the /var/games/nethack directory itself. It looks to me like the nethack installation was

mailbox file permissions and timestamps

Hi What are the correct mailbox file mode bitmasks in /var/mail? This is what I have: :/var/mail$ ls -al total 20 drwxrwsr-x 2 root mail 4096 2011-03-30 10:00 . drwxr-xr-x 16 root root 4096 2010-01-14 20:21 .. -rw--- 1 root mail 582 2010-04-13 21:31 root -rw--- 1 u1 mail 528

Re: mailbox file permissions and timestamps

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:11:08 +0200, Stanisław Findeisen wrote: What are the correct mailbox file mode bitmasks in /var/mail? This is what I have: :/var/mail$ ls -al total 20 drwxrwsr-x 2 root mail 4096 2011-03-30 10:00 . drwxr-xr-x 16 root root 4096 2010-01-14 20:21 .. -rw--- 1

Directory and file permissions

My google foo seems to have deserted me completely. Could someone take pity? :-( Is it possible for a directory to have lower permissions than the files it contains? And could those who have permissions for the files, but not the directory, gain access to the files? My instinct says no.

Re: Directory and file permissions

2010-12-08 13:17, Lisi skrev: My google foo seems to have deserted me completely. Could someone take pity? :-( I will try my best guess: On our webserver-space it is quite common to leave directories without read access, to prevent visitors from obtaining directory listings. The files in

Re: Directory and file permissions

On 8.12.2010 14:17, Lisi wrote: My google foo seems to have deserted me completely. Could someone take pity? :-( Is it possible for a directory to have lower permissions than the files it contains? And could those who have permissions for the files, but not the directory, gain access

Re: Directory and file permissions

access’ to the files (rw access). Barring any typos and stuff, the above should be correct, but if you google for ‘linux file permissions’ you shall come up with clearer and likely more reliable explanations. What I do not know is why this was thus designed, except perhaps to confuse the likes

Re: Directory and file permissions

In 201012081217.41820.lisi.re...@gmail.com, Lisi wrote: My google foo seems to have deserted me completely. Could someone take pity? :-( Is it possible for a directory to have lower permissions than the files it contains? What is lower? Is 577 lower than 600 or vice-versa? In any case, the

Re: Directory and file permissions

On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 02:00:21PM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: In 201012081217.41820.lisi.re...@gmail.com, Lisi wrote: My google foo seems to have deserted me completely. Could someone take pity? :-( Is it possible for a directory to have lower permissions than the files it

Re: Directory and file permissions

On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 02:00:21PM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: In 201012081217.41820.lisi.re...@gmail.com, Lisi wrote: My google foo seems to have deserted me completely. Could someone take pity? :-( Is it possible for a directory to have lower permissions than the files it

Something weird about file permissions

Hi guys! Something is very weird or I didn't sleep enough last night. I am puzzled. How can an ordinary user delete a file he has no write access? See this example: p...@montblanc:~$ cd /tmp/ p...@montblanc:/tmp$ mkdir test; cd test p...@montblanc:/tmp/test$ sudo touch file_owned_by_root

  1   2   3   >