bugtraq - Re: Curious fileutils/coreutils behaviour.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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