Hi, what or who stops you from making a copy of the machine and start testing there?
This is the only valid option if you do not want to interrupt a running server. Erich On Saturday 21 July 2012 14:59:40 Robert Bonomi wrote: > > > From: Wojciech Puchar <woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> > > Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:12:05 +0200 (CEST) > > Subject: Re: Help solving the sysadm's nightmare > > > > [[ sarcastic comment with no useful value removed ]] > > > > it's a mess, and ofcourse everything is "critical" there is no room for > > > interruption of service. > > > > > > Now, I have no idea which processes actually require access to those > > > files, what privileges these processes run with and which files are > > > actually executable or just plain files. > > i can only help you with base system and ports permissions, and /var and > > /etc > > > > just look how it should be > > Of gourse, setting system/ports permissins back to the way "it should be" > WILL re-introduce the problems that were 'solved' by the prior administrator > changing permissiona as descrribed, resulting in UNACCEPTABLE interruption > of operations -- quote: > "Everything is 'critical' there is no room for interruption of service." > > > > What I know is that lots of files are on samba shares and lots of files > > > are used by uniface9 application, but I don't know much about uniface > > > or if this is actually executed on the client or on the server. > > > > look at samba config to check as what user directories are accessed. set > > it as such user and chmod 700 is enough. > > While that "instruction" may have some relevance to _some_ situations, there > is *NO* guarantee that, say, multiple users in a given department of the > business do _not_ require access to files in the 'user directory' of another > employee in that same department. > > While one can argue -- with some validity -- that things "should not" be > that way, one _cannot_ guarantee that such is not the case. ESPECIALLY, > given the mind-set of the prior admin(s). > > Thus, changing permissions 'as directed' _does_ have a definite possibilit > of causing unacceptable interruption of critical services. > > > > So, how can I > > > > > - determine which users actually need read or write access to these > > > files? > > > > lsof will not help you. > > Using lsof will *DEFINITELY* _help_ -- in identifying which applications > access which files. lsof output will not be comprehensive/complete, because > a single lsof run only produces a snapshot of what currentl-running processes > have what files open at that time. But it *DOES* provide a 'starting point', > a list of the files that the running applications are _proven_ to require > access to. Changing permissions on those lsof-identified files, such that > the application in question does _not_ have access to it *WILL* break that > application. > > Knowing what -not- to do -- because "doing that thing" _will_ break > something -- is a _critical_ part of determining what =can= be done. > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > > _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
