Re: chmod, chgrp and symlinks
From: Ramazan Jah-Far (ramazanjf@svitonline.com)
Date: 02/04/03
- Next message: bob davis: "allow ports above 1024"
- Previous message: Whoever: "Re: FTP question"
- In reply to: Kasper Dupont: "Re: chmod, chgrp and symlinks"
- Next in thread: Kasper Dupont: "Re: chmod, chgrp and symlinks"
- Reply: Kasper Dupont: "Re: chmod, chgrp and symlinks"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: Ramazan Jah-Far <ramazanjf@svitonline.com> Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 00:02:23 +0200
Hi!
In comp.os.linux.security, Kasper Dupont wrote:
KD> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> You've *completely* ignored hard links.
Yes. I don't know what to do with them.
KD> In that case you could refuse to change permissions on any
KD> file with multiple links. Use the find command and the
KD> "-links 1" test.
Hardlinks are a pain in ass anyway. Considering all
said above, hardlinks turn to be a sort of design
flaw. IMO.
Think what will happen when someone make hardlink of
every file in $dir:
KD> and to prevent chmod on hardlinks you could use:
KD> find $dir -type f -links 1 -name '*.mp3' -print0 | xargs -0 chmod 640
This will _prevent_ the very sense of the script :),
i.e. will cause DoS.
-- Bye! Ramazan
- Next message: bob davis: "allow ports above 1024"
- Previous message: Whoever: "Re: FTP question"
- In reply to: Kasper Dupont: "Re: chmod, chgrp and symlinks"
- Next in thread: Kasper Dupont: "Re: chmod, chgrp and symlinks"
- Reply: Kasper Dupont: "Re: chmod, chgrp and symlinks"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]