From owner-freebsd-questions Tue May 28 09:00:24 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA09165 for questions-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 1996 09:00:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from felix.iupui.edu (root@felix.iupui.edu [134.68.45.77]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA09158 for ; Tue, 28 May 1996 09:00:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from corona (jrclark@indy2.indy.net [199.3.65.7]) by felix.iupui.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA00892 for ; Tue, 28 May 1996 10:59:46 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 10:59:46 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960528110438.0030d694@felix.iupui.edu> X-Sender: jrclark@felix.iupui.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: questions@freebsd.org From: John Clark Subject: kernel file permissions Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Hello, I was looking at the default kernel permissions... Is there any need to have them so open? Why should there be read and execute permissions for the "other" group? I suppose, you could reverse that question on me: "why not let everyone read and execute it?" Anyway, it seems to work great like this: -r-------- 1 root wheel 705521 May 21 12:33 kernel -r-------- 1 root wheel 1139171 May 18 12:15 kernel.gen Call me anal, but this seems much more desirable. If someone knows of a reason why the above permissions may be bad (ie. different run levels?), please let me know -- but it works just fine as far as I can tell. Thanks again; --John [jrclark@indy.net]