On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 08:09:31AM -0500, Jay Paulson wrote: > I was under the impression that changing the umask was a possible > security risk. Am I correct in thinking that? > > jay Whether it is a security risk depends on what permissions you can tolerate on your files. But a reminder. Setting the umask only limits the minimum permissions a file can have. It does not legislate that the all files have that level of permissions. It can be more secure than the umask states. > > On Aug 23, 2005, at 4:06 AM, Paul Howarth wrote: > > >Mark Sargent wrote: > >>expanding on this a little...when I set the dir to g+s it makes every > >>file saved in the dir have the group's permissions, allowing everyone > >>access, but, how does one set a particular dir so that any file saved > >>to it, has particular permissions, like say, rwxrwxr--? Now, when I > >>save a new file to the dir, it saves as the default permissions, > >>rw-r--r--. > > > >You can't. You'd have to change your umask from 022 to 002 to do this, > >and it would affect all files/directories you created, not just the > >ones in that directory. > > > >Paul. > > > >-- > >fedora-list mailing list > >fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > >To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list > > > > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list -- ======================================================================= Acting is not very hard. The most important things are to be able to laugh and cry. If I have to cry, I think of my sex life. And if I have to laugh, well, I think of my sex life. -- Glenda Jackson ------------------------------------------- Aaron Konstam Computer Science Trinity University telephone: (210)-999-7484
