Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 20:12:39 +0100 From: Jez Hancock <jez.hancock@munk.nu> To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: umask Message-ID: <20030814191239.GA86904@users.munk.nu> In-Reply-To: <200308142025.18512.ajacoutot@lphp.org> References: <200308141542.40587.ajacoutot@lphp.org> <20030814181947.GC8728@webserver> <200308142025.18512.ajacoutot@lphp.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030814191239.GA86904>