On Monday, April 15, 2002, at 02:22 PM, Darren Gamble wrote:
> Setting up sudo access should work properly. Ensure that the service is
> actually running as "nobody" and not another unprivileged user.
>
> However, it should be mentioned that this is a very, very insecure
> method!
> The chown
On Monday, April 15, 2002, at 02:05 PM, John Weez wrote:
> No, user nobody does not have access to chown command. This is part of
> my problem i suspect.
So then your "chown" command's permissions do not allow "everyone" to
execute it? If this is not the standard setup, so I would speak to
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 10:54:51AM -0700, John Weez wrote:
:
: I have a script which makes a directory. This directory is owned by
: nobody.nobody because that is what apache runs as. But, I want this
: directory to be owned by a differrent user. So, After making the
: directory i use the php
Good day.
As you've probably surmised, chown needs to be run as the root user, even if
the file or directory in question is owned by the user wanting to make the
change.
Setting up sudo access should work properly. Ensure that the service is
actually running as "nobody" and not another unprivil
No, user nobody does not have access to chown command. This is part of
my problem i suspect.
Erik Price wrote:
>
>
>>
>
> Are you saying that when you are logged in as "nobody", you can
> execute "chown otheruser directoryname"? If that is so then PHP,
> which runs under Apache which runs
On Monday, April 15, 2002, at 01:54 PM, John Weez wrote:
> I have a script which makes a directory. This directory is owned by
> nobody.nobody because that is what apache runs as. But, I want this
> directory to be owned by a differrent user. So, After making the
> directory i use the php co
6 matches
Mail list logo
