Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 21:46:10 +0100 From: Jez Hancock <jez.hancock@munk.nu> To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: umask Message-ID: <20030814204610.GB86904@users.munk.nu> In-Reply-To: <200308142137.49573.ajacoutot@lphp.org> References: <200308141542.40587.ajacoutot@lphp.org> <200308142025.18512.ajacoutot@lphp.org> <20030814191239.GA86904@users.munk.nu> <200308142137.49573.ajacoutot@lphp.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 09:37:46PM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Thursday 14 August 2003 21:12, Jez Hancock wrote: > > 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. > > Ah, OK... this is kind of a problem indeed. Yes I got burnt by setting my root umask to 077 and installing a raft of apps - real nightmare finding out which apps installed perms with dodgy perms. > Well, I don't know what to do anymore :) > Maybe setting an umask of 077 only for /usr/home (using fstab) would be a good > start ? The only gotcha there is with httpd access - if you decide to have apache read documentroot folders from under /usr/home then any files your users create in a shell won't be accessible by the www user by default. In the end I gave up and left the default umask alone, causes more problems than it solves in the 'prevention' vein. umask is perhaps more friendly when considering setting a lower umask to allow for users to create group rwx files by default. I've not used it that much tbh. :) -- Jez http://www.munk.nu/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030814204610.GB86904>