Jeremy Gaddis wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Bob Proulx wrote:
>
> > There is no sensitive files installed in /root. There really is no
> > reason not to make it 755. Everyone knows what is in /root. It is
> > not a secret.
>
> oh? what do i have in my /root directories then?
If your implica
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:39:51PM -0500, Jeremy Gaddis wrote:
> i guess i wrongly assumed that a distribution that's usually
> somewhat sane would have somewhat sane permissions on a directory
> such as /root, which i consider "sensitive", so to speak.
This topic comes up fairly regularly. On De
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Bob Proulx wrote:
> > Sorry, made a boo-boo when I wrote that.
> > I meant to ask why were the default
> > permissions *NOT* set to 700 on a clean
> > install?
> There is no sensitive files installed in /root. There really is no
> reason not to make it 755. Everyone knows w
> > Sorry, made a boo-boo when I wrote that.
> > I meant to ask why were the default
> > permissions *NOT* set to 700 on a clean
> > install?
> This was discussed at length on debian-devel, IIRC. Try search the
> archives at http://lists.debian.org/.
ahhh, i don't read debian-devel so i wasn't a
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 03:36:12AM +1100, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:45:27PM -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> > Questionable on the "any user" part (if it was clear-cut 'should not
> > be world-readable', why does debian default to 755 for non-root
> > users?)
> I'm fairly sure you
Jeremy Gaddis wrote:
> Jeremy Gaddis said:
>
> > Can anyone explain to me why /root has
> > default permissions of 700 on a clean
> > install?
>
> Sorry, made a boo-boo when I wrote that.
> I meant to ask why were the default
> permissions *NOT* set to 700 on a clean
> install?
There is no sensi
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:54:09PM -0500, Jeremy Gaddis wrote:
> Jeremy Gaddis said:
>
> > Can anyone explain to me why /root has
> > default permissions of 700 on a clean
> > install?
>
> Sorry, made a boo-boo when I wrote that.
> I meant to ask why were the default
> permissions *NOT* set to 70
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:45:27PM -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 01:45:14PM -0600, Michael Heironimus wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:07:38PM -0500, Jeremy Gaddis wrote:
> > > Can anyone explain to me why /root has
> > > default permissions of 700 on a clean
> > > ins
Jeremy Gaddis said:
> Can anyone explain to me why /root has
> default permissions of 700 on a clean
> install?
Sorry, made a boo-boo when I wrote that.
I meant to ask why were the default
permissions *NOT* set to 700 on a clean
install?
I have multiple Debian machines and just
today noticed tha
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 01:45:14PM -0600, Michael Heironimus wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:07:38PM -0500, Jeremy Gaddis wrote:
> > Can anyone explain to me why /root has
> > default permissions of 700 on a clean
> > install?
>
> Because that's root's home directory and you normally don't wan
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:07:38PM -0500, Jeremy Gaddis wrote:
> Can anyone explain to me why /root has
> default permissions of 700 on a clean
> install?
Because that's root's home directory and you normally don't want any
user's home directory to be world-readable.
--
Michael Heironimus
--
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:07:38PM -0500, Jeremy Gaddis wrote:
| Can anyone explain to me why /root has
| default permissions of 700 on a clean
| install?
No other user(s) should tamper with /root. What permissions do you
think it should be?
-D
--
He who scorns instruction will pay for it,
but
12 matches
Mail list logo
