From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Aug 14 12:12:40 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96A0B37B401
	for <questions@freebsd.org>; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from munk.nu (213-152-51-194.dsl.eclipse.net.uk [213.152.51.194])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDEEB43F85
	for <questions@freebsd.org>; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:12:39 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from munk@munk.nu)
Received: from munk by munk.nu with local (Exim 4.20)
	id 19nNWZ-000Mh4-BH
	for questions@freebsd.org; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 20:12:39 +0100
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 20:12:39 +0100
From: Jez Hancock <jez.hancock@munk.nu>
To: questions@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20030814191239.GA86904@users.munk.nu>
Mail-Followup-To: questions@freebsd.org
References: <200308141542.40587.ajacoutot@lphp.org>
	<20030814181947.GC8728@webserver> <200308142025.18512.ajacoutot@lphp.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200308142025.18512.ajacoutot@lphp.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: User Munk <munk@munk.nu>
Subject: Re: umask
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:12:40 -0000

On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 08:25:15PM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Thursday 14 August 2003 20:19, Joshua Oreman wrote:
> > 066 will be *more* secure than 022.
> 
> I know that :)
> 
> > This is because a umask is deducted from the default permission bits of 666
> > (or 777 for executables) on new files. So a umask of 022 will cause new
> > files to have a mode of 600 or 711.
> 
> Yes I know, I was just wondering why the default behaviour was not very 
> secure.
> 
> > * 077  (600 or 700 -- most secure)
> 
> So, if I set umask to 077, this is OK, right ? Is there ANY cons ?
Some applications require a less strict umask to install files correctly
with the right permissions - quite often you aren't warned about this
either and it can be a headache finding out which file perms are
incorrect.
-- 
Jez

http://www.munk.nu/