Following your logic we should all abandon directory permissions and
stick to file-only ones. Hmm... Dunno, probably the blood level in my
coffee subsystem is too high this morning, but I do not quite relish
that idea.
There is a very valid case of trying to restrict access via directory
permissions. Suppose you have a binary program that uses its own
directory but for whatever reason keeps scribbling in files with wrong
permission in it. While I cannot think of a current example, out of the
older ones at least one of the Word Perfect versions for linux used to
do that.
By tightening up the protection on the directory the sysadmin can
mitigate the problem. It is in fact the standard way of doing this.
On Sat, 2009-10-24 at 01:12 +0400, Dan Yefimov wrote:
> On 24.10.2009 0:35, Matthew Bergin wrote:
> > doesnt look like the original owner is trying to write to it. Shows it
> > cant, it had guest write to it via the proc folders bad permissions.
> > Looks legitimate
> >
> Please tell me, who issued 'chmod 0666 unwritable_file'? Was that an attacker?
> No, that was the owner of 'unwritable_file', nobody else. What the 0666 file
> mode means? It means, that everybody can write to the file, can't he? So why do
> you believe that pretension legitimate?
--
Understanding is a three-edged sword:
your side, their side, and the truth. --Kosh Naranek
A. R. Ivanov
E-mail: aivanov@xxxxxxxxxx
WWW: http://www.sigsegv.cx/
pub 1024D/DDE5E715 2002-03-03 Anton R. Ivanov <arivanov@xxxxxxxxxx>
Fingerprint: C824 CBD7 EE4B D7F8 5331 89D5 FCDA 572E DDE5 E715
