> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 02:00:21PM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > In <201012081217.41820.lisi.re...@gmail.com>, Lisi wrote:
> > >My google foo seems to have deserted me completely. Could someone take
> > >pity? :-(
> > >
> > >Is it possible for a directory to have lower permissions tha
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 02:00:21PM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> In <201012081217.41820.lisi.re...@gmail.com>, Lisi wrote:
> >My google foo seems to have deserted me completely. Could someone take
> >pity? :-(
> >
> >Is it possible for a directory to have lower permissions than the files
In <201012081217.41820.lisi.re...@gmail.com>, Lisi wrote:
>My google foo seems to have deserted me completely. Could someone take
>pity? :-(
>
>Is it possible for a directory to have lower permissions than the files it
>contains?
What is lower? Is 577 lower than 600 or vice-versa?
In any case,
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 07:17:41AM EST, Lisi wrote:
> My google foo seems to have deserted me completely. Could someone take
> pity? :-(
>
> Is it possible for a directory to have lower permissions than the files it
> contains? And could those who have permissions for the files, but not the
>
On 8.12.2010 14:17, Lisi wrote:
> My google foo seems to have deserted me completely. Could someone take
> pity? :-(
>
> Is it possible for a directory to have lower permissions than the files it
> contains? And could those who have permissions for the files, but not the
> directory, gain acc
2010-12-08 13:17, Lisi skrev:
My google foo seems to have deserted me completely. Could someone take
pity? :-(
I will try my best guess:
On our webserver-space it is quite common to leave directories without
read access, to prevent visitors from obtaining directory listings.
The files in t
6 matches
Mail list logo
