Re: Still Read-only
From: Roger Abell (mvpNOSpam_at_asu.edu)
Date: 10/22/03
- Next message: Roger Abell: "Re: combining user names"
- Previous message: Gary: "transfering updates from a second machine"
- In reply to: Thrasy: "Still Read-only"
- Next in thread: Thrasy: "Re: Still Read-only"
- Reply: Thrasy: "Re: Still Read-only"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 22:51:25 -0700
You did nothing wrong, and nothing you do during
or after an install of XP or W2k3 will make things
turn out any differently.
That is how XP and W2k3 are.
Having this checkbox behave that way does not
imply anything other than that the system is behaving
as it was designed to behave.
The checkbox in the properties of XP and W2k3
folders that says Read-Only does not control the
read-only attribute of the folder. It is a switch
that can be used to set or unset the attribute on the
files contained within the folder.
The NT family of operating systems does not use
the Read-only attribute for much, but it does
obey its meaning. In the NT family most access
is controlled by use of permissions within the
NTFS filesystem. File attributes, like read-only,
are inherited from earlier DOS based systems.
NT family mostly only uses attributes for marking
system and hidden system files. File attributes
and file permissions are different things. If you
have security concerns it is the permissions that
you should be dealing with.
If you want to get at the read-only attribute of
folder objects, you must use the old attrib command
in a cmd prompt.
-- Roger Abell Microsoft MVP (Windows Server System: Security) MCSE (W2k3,W2k,Nt4) MCDBA "Thrasy" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:05b301c3985b$90079dd0$a601280a@phx.gbl... > "That is how it is" really doesn't help me understand how > it got that way, how to change it, or what else that > having the system in this condition might imply. > > I am obviously concerned about the system's security and > understanding what change in permissions or policy > settings could possibly cause this type of behavior would > further shed light on the security implications related > to this behavior. > > Since my original post, I have had discussions with > several people who, in the process of taking interest in > my post, discovered similar behavior on their own > installations. Yet, none of these people could give any > reason that this behavior exists or should exist. They > merely noted that it didn't seem to cause them problems. > > Of all of my concerns, the most interesting to me right > now is how have these settings survived multiple > reformatings and reinstallation, even on seperate > partitions. > > I do not recall there being any option in the XP Pro > installation that would allow me to come even close to > creating this kind of thing.
- Next message: Roger Abell: "Re: combining user names"
- Previous message: Gary: "transfering updates from a second machine"
- In reply to: Thrasy: "Still Read-only"
- Next in thread: Thrasy: "Re: Still Read-only"
- Reply: Thrasy: "Re: Still Read-only"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
