more thoughts on Samba permissions manipulation

Cole, Timothy D. timothy_d_cole at md.northgrum.com
Wed Jun 23 15:51:03 GMT 1999


Ahh... yes, I suppose it does make more sense in a "network appliance"
fileserver-type situation. So far, I've really been approaching it from the
perspective of an admin in a more or less normal Unix environment..

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Jeremy Allison [SMTP:jallison at cthulhu.engr.sgi.com]
> Sent:	Tuesday, June 22, 1999 13:50
> To:	timothy_d_cole at md.northgrum.com
> Cc:	Multiple recipients of list
> Subject:	Re: more thoughts on Samba permissions manipulation
> 
> Cole, Timothy D. wrote:
> 
> > Only thing is, now I'm having a hard time coming up with a rationale for
> > even having a 'security mask'-like parameter.  It's probably related to
> the
> > rationale behind the 'force mode' parameter, which I can't justify to
> myself
> > right now either.  Obviously someone wanted or needed it, though; I'm
> kind
> > of curious who uses 'force mode', and for what...
> 
> Whistle use it to ensure that the 'x' bit can *never*
> be set on any files sent to their appliance fileserver
> (that uses FreeBSD). It just makes it that little bit
> harder to run something as an executable if the security
> on the box is breached in some way.
> 
> Jeremy.
> 
> -- 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Buying an operating system without source is like buying
> a self-assembly Space Shuttle with no instructions.
> --------------------------------------------------------


More information about the samba-technical mailing list