On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 12:27:48PM -0800, Marc Shapiro wrote: > Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > >On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 10:02:40AM -0800, Marc Shapiro wrote: > > > >>Both /home an ~/ have permissions of 755, giving read access to > >>everyone (my wife and I are the only persons with physical access). > >>However, ~/.mozilla has permissions of 700, no access to anyone but me! > >> > >>Is it reasonable to let updatedb run as root, so that ALL directories > >>would be included, or is this a Bad Idea (TM)? > >> > >> > > > >FWIW, my .mozilla is 755 but I don't know why that is. > > > >Probably "safer" to just chmod .mozilla than have another process > >running as root. I don't know what the dangers of running updatedb as > >root could possibly be but... > > > Yes, but there are actually quite a few hidden configuration directories > that are set with permissions of 700. I can see that this prevents > anyone else from viewing your configs, but I don't see a danger in that > (viewing, but not changing). I could just change all of them from 700 > to 755. Then updatedb would find them all and locate will actually get > everything, until the next time that some program creates its config > directory with a 700 permission.
or put in a cron job in your personal crontab to run updatedb periodically. or change that user in the config to yourself. I'm still hoping someone will chime in with potential problems (or not) with running updatedb as root. The potential simple problem I see with it is it allows anyone to find any file. whether they can access that file or not is a different matter, but if they can find it, that's one more bit of info they have. meh. A > > -- > Marc Shapiro > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
