Am Dienstag, 31. August 2021, 00:00:02 CEST schrieb Greg Wooledge:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 09:29:14PM +, Andy Smith wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 05:07:16PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > unicorn:~$ strace bash -c 'echo stuff >> /tmp/123'
> > > [...]
> > > openat(AT_FD
Am Montag, 30. August 2021, 21:58:47 CEST schrieb Greg Wooledge:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 09:01:33PM +0200, Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> > rd@h370:~/tmp.nobackup$ ls -l /tmp/123
> > -rw-rw-r-- 1 rd users 0 30. Aug 20:42 /tmp/123
> >
> > User ka overwrites it with the content of another file (atomically
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 09:29:14PM +, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 05:07:16PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > unicorn:~$ strace bash -c 'echo stuff >> /tmp/123'
> > [...]
> > openat(AT_FDCWD, "/tmp/123", O_WRONLY|O_CREAT|O_APPEND, 0666) = -1 EACCES
> > (Permission de
Hello,
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 05:07:16PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> unicorn:~$ strace bash -c 'echo stuff >> /tmp/123'
> [...]
> openat(AT_FDCWD, "/tmp/123", O_WRONLY|O_CREAT|O_APPEND, 0666) = -1 EACCES
> (Permission denied)
>
> As far as I can see, this is a kernel bug. Unless I'm overlook
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 10:57:59PM +0200, Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> Hmm...your example works for me as well
>
> rd@h370:~/tmp.nobackup$ sudo touch /tmp/123; sudo chgrp video /tmp/123; sudo
> chmod 664 /tmp/123
> [sudo] Passwort für rd:
> rd@h370:~/tmp.nobackup$ ls -l /tmp/123
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 root vi
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 09:01:33PM +0200, Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> rd@h370:~/tmp.nobackup$ ls -l /tmp/123
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 rd users 0 30. Aug 20:42 /tmp/123
> User ka overwrites it with the content of another file (atomically):
>
> ka@h370:~$ echo test > 123
> ka@h370:~$ mv 123 /tmp/123
> mv: cannot
>
>
> Is there something special with /tmp?
>
Do you have sticky bit on `/tmp`?
> For directories, when a directory's sticky bit is set, the filesystem
treats the files in such directories in a special way so only the file's
owner, the directory's owner, or root user can rename or delete the file
On 09/22/2018 08:34 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:
I'm assuming operator problem as I get same symptoms on:
two laptops each running different Debian releases (6.8, 9.1).
[both using MATE desktop]
two different media (32Gb USB flash, 240 Gb USB SSD).
Logged in as 'richard' I use Gparted
On 24/09/18 1:20 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:
> root@debian8-6:/home/richard# # force UID/GID to 'richard', label
> device, accept standard defaults
> root@debian8-6:/home/richard# mkfs.ext4 root_owner=1000:1000 -L
> 2018Sept23tst1 /dev/sdb1
> mke2fs 1.42.12 (29-Aug-2014)
> mkfs.ext4: invalid blocks '
On 9/23/18 11:38 AM, David Christensen wrote:
On 9/23/18 11:33 AM, David Christensen wrote:
After you have done the above steps, you will need to create a mount
point using mkdir(1), and then mount the file system using mount(8).
If you are using a USB device and have a suitable desktop, you m
Hello,
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 01:18:25PM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> Is this not creating a partition?
> >root@debian8-6:/home/richard# mkfs.ext4 root_owner=1000:1000 -L
> >2018Sept23tst1 /dev/sdb1
> >mke2fs 1.42.12 (29-Aug-2014)
Nope. The error you got from this command is consistent with
/
On 9/23/18 11:33 AM, David Christensen wrote:
After you have done the above steps, you will need to create a mount
point using mkdir(1), and then mount the file system using mount(8).
If you are using a USB device and have a suitable desktop, you might be
able to unplug the device, plug it in,
On 9/23/18 11:18 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:
Is this not creating a partition?
root@debian8-6:/home/richard# mkfs.ext4 root_owner=1000:1000 -L
2018Sept23tst1 /dev/sdb1
No. The "mkfs.ext4" command creates a file system on a pre-existing
device or partition (e.g. /dev/sdb1).
I want to use CL
On 09/23/2018 10:32 AM, Andy Smith wrote:
Hello,
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 09:11:44AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
I had thought I had created a partition table with Gparted.
Nowhere in your previously posted session did you show yourself
calling gparted or any other partitioning tool.
Cheers,
Hello,
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 09:11:44AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> I had thought I had created a partition table with Gparted.
Nowhere in your previously posted session did you show yourself
calling gparted or any other partitioning tool.
Cheers,
Andy
On 09/23/2018 08:26 AM, Tom Furie wrote:
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 08:20:10AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
root@debian8-6:/home/richard# # purge device
root@debian8-6:/home/richard# dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdb bs=4M
root@debian8-6:/home/richard# # force UID/GID to 'richard', label device,
acce
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 08:20:10AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> root@debian8-6:/home/richard# # purge device
> root@debian8-6:/home/richard# dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdb bs=4M
> root@debian8-6:/home/richard# # force UID/GID to 'richard', label device,
> accept standard defaults
> root@debian8-6:
On 09/23/2018 04:18 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:
On 09/22/2018 09:57 PM, David Christensen wrote:
On 9/22/18 5:30 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
[snip]
Command-line interfaces and console sessions work the best for mailing
lists.
Yes. They also work well for proving operator problems ;/
[snip]
Th
On 09/22/2018 09:57 PM, David Christensen wrote:
On 9/22/18 5:30 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
On 09/22/2018 03:40 PM, David Christensen wrote:
On 9/22/18 7:28 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:
On 09/22/2018 08:44 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
Richard Owlett wrote:
I'm assuming operator problem as I get same s
On 9/22/18 5:30 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
On 09/22/2018 03:40 PM, David Christensen wrote:
On 9/22/18 7:28 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:
On 09/22/2018 08:44 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
Richard Owlett wrote:
I'm assuming operator problem as I get same symptoms on:
two laptops each running differen
On 09/22/2018 03:40 PM, David Christensen wrote:
On 9/22/18 7:28 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:
On 09/22/2018 08:44 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
Richard Owlett wrote:
I'm assuming operator problem as I get same symptoms on:
two laptops each running different Debian releases (6.8, 9.1).
[both
On 9/22/18 7:28 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:
On 09/22/2018 08:44 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
Richard Owlett wrote:
I'm assuming operator problem as I get same symptoms on:
two laptops each running different Debian releases (6.8, 9.1).
[both using MATE desktop]
two different media (32Gb
On 09/22/2018 08:44 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
Richard Owlett wrote:
I'm assuming operator problem as I get same symptoms on:
two laptops each running different Debian releases (6.8, 9.1).
[both using MATE desktop]
two different media (32Gb USB flash, 240 Gb USB SSD).
Logged in as
Richard Owlett wrote:
> I'm assuming operator problem as I get same symptoms on:
> two laptops each running different Debian releases (6.8, 9.1).
> [both using MATE desktop]
> two different media (32Gb USB flash, 240 Gb USB SSD).
>
> Logged in as 'richard' I use Gparted (providing roo
David Christensen wrote:
> Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > It's possible, I once changed the uid for a user from 1001 to 1000 and
> > preferences for all files using find for a FreeBSD install. I had bad
> > luck and something strange happened, I can't remember the issue, but it
> > was much work to change
On 11/11/2013 07:12 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
It's possible, I once changed the uid for a user from 1001 to 1000 and
preferences for all files using find for a FreeBSD install. I had bad
luck and something strange happened, I can't remember the issue, but it
was much work to change really the real
On 11/11/2013 01:19 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Yes, but in this case the name should change from spinymouse used for my
old installs of the last years, to rocketmouse for the first user. The
first user always gets the uid 1000 to keep all my systems compatible,
even FreeBSD that IIRC by default does
On 11/11/2013 06:18 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:24:39PM -0800, David Christensen wrote:
On 11/10/2013 10:26 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
[...]
+1
-1000!
Why?
David
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trou
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 04:12:31PM +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 03:18 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:24:39PM -0800, David Christensen wrote:
> > > On 11/10/2013 10:26 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> > [...]
> > >
> > > +1
> >
> > -1000!
>
> :D
>
> It'
On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 03:18 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:24:39PM -0800, David Christensen wrote:
> > On 11/10/2013 10:26 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > +1
>
> -1000!
:D
It's possible, I once changed the uid for a user from 1001 to 1000 and
preferences for al
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:24:39PM -0800, David Christensen wrote:
> On 11/10/2013 10:26 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
[...]
>
> +1
-1000!
--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the
oppressing." --- Malcolm
On Sun, 2013-11-10 at 23:26 -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Not if you synchronize the uids. Pick one to be 1000. Move the other
> one to 1001. Then then will be different. Then both systems will
> have the same list of users and uids.
Yes, but in this case the name should change from spinymouse us
On 11/10/2013 10:26 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
That is the entire point of why I suggested synchronizing the uid
numbers between the systems! Have exactly one uid per name. No more.
No less. One only. Two users with the same uid is right out! :-)
It is a little bit of work to edit the files to syn
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > > Bob Proulx wrote:
> > > > If the user has the same uid:gid then they will all have sane access.
> > >
> > > Yes, but it should be mentioned that for sharing some paths by a
> > > multi-boot, uid and name of the user must fit, if
Hi Bob,
On Sun, 2013-11-10 at 12:24 -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > Bob Proulx wrote:
> > > If the user has the same uid:gid then they will all have sane access.
> >
> > Yes, but it should be mentioned that for sharing some paths by a
> > multi-boot, uid and name of the user mu
Bob Proulx wrote:
Siard wrote:
Richard Owlett wrote:
My dual boots Squeeze and Wheezy.
I've created a partition whose function in life is to be
essentially a scratch pad for all groups/users of both.
How do I force all files to be written to that partition to be
readable AND writable to everybo
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > If the user has the same uid:gid then they will all have sane access.
>
> Yes, but it should be mentioned that for sharing some paths by a
> multi-boot, uid and name of the user must fit, if you want to avoid
> links.
I am sorry but I do not understand
On Sun, 2013-11-10 at 11:39 -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
> If the user has the same uid:gid then they will all have sane access.
Yes, but it should be mentioned that for sharing some paths by a
multi-boot, uid and name of the user must fit, if you want to avoid
links.
$ ls -hAl /home /mnt/q/home
/hom
Richard Owlett wrote:
> My dual boots Squeeze and Wheezy.
> I've created a partition whose function in life is to be essentially
> a scratch pad for all groups/users of both.
> How do I force all files to be written to that partition to be
> readable AND writable to everybody?
You are creating a m
Siard wrote:
> Richard Owlett wrote:
> > My dual boots Squeeze and Wheezy.
> > I've created a partition whose function in life is to be
> > essentially a scratch pad for all groups/users of both.
> > How do I force all files to be written to that partition to be
> > readable AND writable to every
Richard Owlett wrote:
My dual boots Squeeze and Wheezy.
I've created a partition whose function in life is to be
essentially a scratch pad for all groups/users of both.
How do I force all files to be written to that partition to be
readable AND writable to everybody?
Thank you Siard and David
On 11/08/2013 08:51 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:
My dual boots Squeeze and Wheezy.
I've created a partition whose function in life is to be essentially a
scratch pad for all groups/users of both.
How do I force all files to be written to that partition to be readable
AND writable to everybody?
Thi
Richard Owlett wrote:
> My dual boots Squeeze and Wheezy.
> I've created a partition whose function in life is to be
> essentially a scratch pad for all groups/users of both.
> How do I force all files to be written to that partition to be
> readable AND writable to everybody?
By putting a line
On 8/31/13, pch0317 wrote:
> Hi List,
>
> I must allow user to access part of filesystem tree of my server
> (/opt/someaplication) - read,write,execute. Remaining part of filesystem
> tree musn't be accessible.
> How I can do this? With ACL?
Just use groups. No need for fancy. Make the user's gro
On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 22:37:38 +0100, Anon wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm not quite sure whom I should send this report to but recently I've
> noticed that I can remove files which owner is root and that have access
> mode set as 644 (see example below). I'm using Debian wheezy/sid with
> 3.0.0-2-amd64 #1
Anon wrote:
> I'm not quite sure whom I should send this report to but recently
> I've noticed that I can remove files which owner is root and that
> have access mode set as 644 (see example below).
The permissions on the file are not relevant. It is only permissions
on the directory that matter.
On 09/10/11 01:06, Thomas H. George wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 12:09:51PM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 08/10/11 01:31, Thomas H. George wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 10:37:04AM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 06/10/11 01:38, Thomas H. George wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 a
On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 12:09:51PM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 08/10/11 01:31, Thomas H. George wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 10:37:04AM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> >> On 06/10/11 01:38, Thomas H. George wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 08:57:59AM -0400, Alan Greenberger wrote:
>
On 08/10/11 01:31, Thomas H. George wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 10:37:04AM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 06/10/11 01:38, Thomas H. George wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 08:57:59AM -0400, Alan Greenberger wrote:
On 2011-10-03, Thomas H. George wrote:
(...)
Tell us
On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 10:37:04AM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 06/10/11 01:38, Thomas H. George wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 08:57:59AM -0400, Alan Greenberger wrote:
> >> On 2011-10-03, Thomas H. George wrote:
> >> (...)
> >> Tell us your scanner model? :-)
> >>
> > Epson
On 2011-10-06, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>
> Alan's post has broken the thread - but in a previous post I mentioned
> that "The problem seems to be that *both* epson and epson2 backends are
> being called"
>
>
>>> $ grep epson /etc/sane.d/dll.conf
>> epson
>> epson2
>
> This is where epson *and* epson
On 06/10/11 01:38, Thomas H. George wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 08:57:59AM -0400, Alan Greenberger wrote:
>> On 2011-10-03, Thomas H. George wrote:
>> (...)
>> Tell us your scanner model? :-)
>>
> Epson Perfection 2400 Photo
>> (...)
>>> Just found the following:
>>>
>
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 08:57:59AM -0400, Alan Greenberger wrote:
> On 2011-10-03, Thomas H. George wrote:
> (...)
> >> >> Tell us your scanner model? :-)
> >> >>
> >> > Epson Perfection 2400 Photo
> >>
> >>
> (...)
> > Just found the following:
> >
> >
> > Script started on Mon 03 Oct 2011 03
On 2011-10-03, Thomas H. George wrote:
(...)
>> >> Tell us your scanner model? :-)
>> >>
>> > Epson Perfection 2400 Photo
>>
>>
(...)
> Just found the following:
>
>
> Script started on Mon 03 Oct 2011 03:38:15 PM EDT
> tom@dragon:~$ lsusb -s 001:005
> Bus 001 Device 005: ID 04b8:011b Seiko Ep
On 04/10/11 07:02, Thomas H. George wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 02:50:36PM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 02/10/11 23:30, Thomas H. George wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 02:49:04PM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 02/10/11 03:25, Thomas H. George wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 a
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 02:50:36PM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 02/10/11 23:30, Thomas H. George wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 02:49:04PM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> >> On 02/10/11 03:25, Thomas H. George wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 04:20:01PM -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
>
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 02:50:36PM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 02/10/11 23:30, Thomas H. George wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 02:49:04PM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> >> On 02/10/11 03:25, Thomas H. George wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 04:20:01PM -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
>
On 02/10/11 23:30, Thomas H. George wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 02:49:04PM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 02/10/11 03:25, Thomas H. George wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 04:20:01PM -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
I can run xsane as root but not as user tom although tom is a member
On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 02:49:04PM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 02/10/11 03:25, Thomas H. George wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 04:20:01PM -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
> >> I can run xsane as root but not as user tom although tom is a member of
> >> the scanner group. What other group m
On 02/10/11 03:25, Thomas H. George wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 04:20:01PM -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
>> I can run xsane as root but not as user tom although tom is a member of
>> the scanner group. What other group membership is required?
>>
> As suggested by responders I have confirmed
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 04:20:01PM -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
> I can run xsane as root but not as user tom although tom is a member of
> the scanner group. What other group membership is required?
>
As suggested by responders I have confirmed that I have always been a
member of the scanner g
On 30/09/11 06:20, Thomas H. George wrote:
> I can run xsane as root but not as user tom although tom is a member of
> the scanner group. What other group membership is required?
>
> Tom
>
>
Scanner group is correct.
Did you logout and back in again to activate membership?
You shouldn't requ
I had similar problem. My scaner has to load firmware and the problem
was in permission of file with firmware.
On 09/29/2011 11:20 PM, Thomas H. George wrote:
I can run xsane as root but not as user tom although tom is a member of
the scanner group. What other group membership is required?
To
On 7/26/10 4:35 PM, Jimmi Nielsen wrote:
Hello.
i have a small problems with my debian server.
alle files are permission 644/600 or something, so i can't change anything
on it.
how can i change it back with root login.
i have try but it say Permission denied
i try to login with SSH but it say
Thanks, I wasn't paying attention to the 'bash' part, only to the
'permission denied' part. :> PEBKAC on my part.
--
_
ASCII Ribbon Campaign Against ( ) Brian Ryans
HTML E-mail and V-cards Xbrianlry...@gmail.com
www.asciiribbon.org
On 2009-12-06 06:22 +0100, Brian Ryans wrote:
> I am attempting to adjust brightness via '/proc/acpi/ibm/brightness',
> but I get permission denied if I do it via sudo -- I have to su to root
> in order to do the adjustments. Log at [1].
>
> [1]
> bry...@esterhazy:~$ sudo echo up > /proc/acpi/ibm/
On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 11:22:37PM -0600, Brian Ryans wrote:
bry...@esterhazy:~$ sudo echo up > /proc/acpi/ibm/brightness
bash: /proc/acpi/ibm/brightness: Permission denied
The redirection is set up by the current shell, i.e. with non-elevated
privileges. Try this instead:
sudo sh -c 'echo up
Haines Brown wrote:
Raj Kiran Grandhi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Haines Brown wrote:
I have a script, ~/scripts/backup, owned by root, that mounts an
external UPS drive, creates a directory based on date, and backs up my
hard disk with the exception of a few directories.
I created a symlink t
Raj Kiran Grandhi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Haines Brown wrote:
> > I have a script, ~/scripts/backup, owned by root, that mounts an
> > external UPS drive, creates a directory based on date, and backs up my
> > hard disk with the exception of a few directories.
> > I created a symlink to /etc
Haines Brown wrote:
I have a script, ~/scripts/backup, owned by root, that mounts an
external UPS drive, creates a directory based on date, and backs up my
hard disk with the exception of a few directories.
I created a symlink to /etc/cron.weekly to automate the job, but
because the script is lo
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 07:44:51AM -0400, Haines Brown wrote:
> a) Why does a script owned by root and run by root lack root's
> permission just because it is in user's directory?
Out of my league
> b) Why does the script snippet above not work?
I don't think you can use sudo that way. Instead
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 05:52:19AM -0700, ann kok wrote:
> --- Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 12:47:23PM -0700, ann kok
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > why the permission of the shadow file in debian is
> > > 640?
> > > and
> > > how can I upgrade the kernel?
>
Hi Doug
Thank you
But I saw most of linux are using 600
why is debian using 640?
for the upgrade, could you give me more information?
eg: steps to upgrade
thank you
--- Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 12:47:23PM -0700, ann kok
> wrote:
> > Hi all
>
On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 17:37 -0700, Bob McGowan wrote:
[snip]
> One might wonder why it isn't just 600, if the only user needing access
> is root? The answer may be in the permissions and owner/group:
>
>-rw-r- 1 root shadow
>
> It would appear there are (or could potentially be) to
Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 12:47:23PM -0700, ann kok wrote:
Hi all
why the permission of the shadow file in debian is
640?
---deleted
1. What do you think the permissions of shadow should be? The only
user who needs to read /etc/shadow is root, that is the who
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 12:47:23PM -0700, ann kok wrote:
> Hi all
>
> why the permission of the shadow file in debian is
> 640?
> and
> how can I upgrade the kernel?
> eg: 686 kernel
1. What do you think the permissions of shadow should be? The only
user who needs to read /etc/shadow is ro
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 15:09:34 -0800
Raquel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> When I try to send email using web software being run on that same
> server, I get the following error.
>
> NOQUEUE: SYSERR(www-data):can not
> chdir(/var/spool/mqueue-client/): Permission denied
>
> Can anyone point me in
George Borisov wrote:
Anthony Hawkes wrote:
What about the issue with Samba,
Are you using anonymous or authenticated access to the share?
authenticated
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anthony Hawkes wrote:
>
> What about the issue with Samba,
Are you using anonymous or authenticated access to the share?
--
George Borisov
DXSolutions Ltd
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Anthony Hawkes wrote:
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:10:05PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
At 1155837967 past the epoch, Anthony Hawkes wrote:
I am not sure which users to add to group folder and what
to modify to fix this problem up, I have googled my heart
out and can
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:10:05PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> At 1155837967 past the epoch, Anthony Hawkes wrote:
> > I am not sure which users to add to group folder and what
> > to modify to fix this problem up, I have googled my heart
> > out and cannot figure this out can anyone give me some
>
At 1155837967 past the epoch, Anthony Hawkes wrote:
> I am not sure which users to add to group folder and what
> to modify to fix this problem up, I have googled my heart
> out and cannot figure this out can anyone give me some
> ideas
Apache2 runs as "www-data"; you would have to add www-data
to
This is the problem I'll hv to solve first i.e. failure of debian to
receive an image attachment. As a test, I had sent two mails, one w
attachment and one w/o. I was also able to send one, w image attachment,
successfully to myself. Where is the problem?
hja123
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EM
hja123 wrote:
> When I try to run su from non-root, after entering the password, there
> was the error msg:
>
> setgid: operation not permitted.
>
You may have a partition mounted as nosuid. Post the output of 'mount'
(no quotes).
> When I examine the permission for dirs in /, I get settings as
On Sun, 01 May 2005 03:30:13 +0200, in linux.debian.user you wrote:
>Basically, i change all the dirs and files to rwx for owner, group and
>others.
Just out of curiosity, why in the heck would you do that?
>BTW, in the tick box for permission, what does a shaded box mean?
Tick box? Are you imp
On 4/30/05, hja123 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Basically, i change all the dirs and files to rwx for owner, group and
> others.
>
> BTW, in the tick box for permission, what does a shaded box mean?
Is that all you did? Seems like changing everything to 777 should do
nothing except reduce securi
Basically, i change all the dirs and files to rwx for owner, group and
others.
BTW, in the tick box for permission, what does a shaded box mean?
hja123
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello Osamu!
Just a minor sidenote...
On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 11:24:54PM +0100, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Original post is asking
> for all files 660
> for all directories 770
>
> So something like:
>
> chmod -R ug=rwX,o-rwx .
>
> should do the best one liner command to address original poster
On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 01:12:07PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Curtis Vaughan wrote:
> > I just noticed that for an entire directory of files and folders, the
> > permissions are not really right.
> >
> > Or maybe it doesn't matter. I went ahead and changed all permission
> > recursively, but fee
Hello Curtis!
On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 09:46:06AM -0800, Curtis Vaughan wrote:
> I just noticed that for an entire directory of files and folders, the
> permissions are not really right.
>
> Or maybe it doesn't matter. I went ahead and changed all permission
> recursively, but feel that permiss
On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 the mental interface of
Curtis Vaughan told:
> I just noticed that for an entire directory of files and folders, the
> permissions are not really right.
>
> Or maybe it doesn't matter. I went ahead and changed all permission
> recursively, but feel that permissions should
Incoming from Curtis Vaughan:
> I just noticed that for an entire directory of files and folders, the
> permissions are not really right.
>
> Or maybe it doesn't matter. I went ahead and changed all permission
> recursively, but feel that permissions should be as follows: for all
> files 660,
On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 09:46:06AM -0800, Curtis Vaughan wrote:
> I just noticed that for an entire directory of files and folders, the
> permissions are not really right.
>
> Or maybe it doesn't matter. I went ahead and changed all permission
> recursively, but feel that permissions should be
On Sat, 2004-03-13 at 11:46, Curtis Vaughan wrote:
> I just noticed that for an entire directory of files and folders, the
> permissions are not really right.
>
> Or maybe it doesn't matter. I went ahead and changed all permission
> recursively, but feel that permissions should be as follows: f
Curtis Vaughan wrote:
> I just noticed that for an entire directory of files and folders, the
> permissions are not really right.
>
> Or maybe it doesn't matter. I went ahead and changed all permission
> recursively, but feel that permissions should be as follows: for all
> files 660, whereas
On 17 Sep 2003 11:03:14 -0400
"David H. Clymer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I cannot uninstall/reinstall, do anything with the kdebase-doc package
> because of a problem with several files, which even as root, i do not
> have permission to list/delete/modify. How is this so? Is there any way
> I
The problem is that the default setting of fstab to /mnt/drive_c and
/mnt/drive_d is read-only. How to set it to read and exec?
James Ng Yuen Sum wrote:
>Hi,
>After I have upgraded from woody to sid (seem i run "apt-get upgrade
>gcc"), the "chmod" command cannot work normally.
>When i am in wood
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 06:25:42PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sometimes I still get baffled by Linux. This is one of those times.
>
> I'd like to run the [EMAIL PROTECTED] client; I've done this before on this
> machine (different system) and on other machines.
>
> Today I get "Permission
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:40:00 -0500
David Z Maze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The other thing that might cause this is if setiathome is a script of
> some sort, and the thing the script points to isn't executable:
That's a good point, thanks.
As it turns out, in fstab I had specified "exec", but
On 25 Mar 2003 17:58:24 -0800
Kevin Buhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> > bash:/home/ronin/files/seti$ ./setiathome
> > bash: ./setiathome: Permission denied
>
> Is the partition containing your home directory mounted "noexec",
> perhaps?
Turned out it was. Thanks
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
