[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20040515063939.GE26734@osdn.org.ua>
Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 09:39:39 +0300
From: Michael Shigorin <mike@...n.org.ua>
To: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: Curious fileutils/coreutils behaviour.
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 07:49:07PM +0100, David Malone wrote:
> > (*)Contrary to the FAQ entry you cited, it is sometimes useful to change the
> > ownership of a symlink. Since the owner of a symlink can be detected by a
> > program, there can exist programs which depend on it.
> Yes, indeed. As another example, Apache has an option to only
> follow symlinks if they belong to the right person.
OpenWall Linux kernel patch also finds some usage for ownership
of symlinks in +t directories, just in case.
OTOH: I've recently had to fix permissions of a bunch of symlinks
(exactly due to -ow effect); apparently in ALT Linux the default
behaviour of coreutils-5.2.1 is to affect the target though at a
quick skim I can't identify the relevant patch, if any.
--
---- WBR, Michael Shigorin <mike@...linux.ru>
------ Linux.Kiev http://www.linux.kiev.ua/
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists