Search Results

Search found 16126 results on 646 pages for 'android permissions'.

Page 284/646 | < Previous Page | 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291  | Next Page >

• Cant access folder on server- Permission denied

  - by Michal Korzeniowski

  I am running a vps with ubuntu 11.04. After a clean Modx install I've tried to access http://www.encepence.pl/manager and I've got a permission denied by my server. the thing is that I can easily access any other folder under that domain and modify this folder(manager) content via ftp. I’ve tried modifying virtual host with that <Directory /var/www/blackflow/data/www/encepence.pl/manager/> Options Indexes FollowSymLinks ExecCGI AllowOverride All Order allow,deny Allow from all </Directory> But it didn't work. <Directory /var/www/blackflow/data/www/encepence.pl> Options -ExecCGI -Includes php_admin_value open_basedir "/var/www/blackflow/data:." php_admin_flag engine on </Directory> <VirtualHost 192.166.219.34:80 > ServerName encepence.pl CustomLog /var/www/httpd-logs/encepence.pl.access.log combined DocumentRoot /var/www/blackflow/data/www/encepence.pl ErrorLog /var/www/httpd-logs/encepence.pl.error.log ServerAdmin [email protected] ServerAlias www.encepence.pl SuexecUserGroup blackflow blackflow AddType application/x-httpd-php .php .php3 .php4 .php5 .phtml AddType application/x-httpd-php-source .phps php_admin_value open_basedir "/var/www/blackflow/data:." php_admin_value sendmail_path "/usr/sbin/sendmail -t -i -f [email protected]" php_admin_value upload_tmp_dir "/var/www/blackflow/data/mod-tmp" php_admin_value session.save_path "/var/www/blackflow/data/mod-tmp" VirtualDocumentRoot /var/www/blackflow/data/www/%0 </VirtualHost> Any ideas on what might have gone wrong?

  Read the article

• Serve a specific set of error pages for different subdirectories

  - by navitronic

  I am currently trying to setup 2 different sets of Error documents for separate folders within a website. I have 2 folders within the root of a site: demo/ live/ Any requests that return 404's or 403's within the demo folder needs to load one set of pages for the Apache errordocuments, eg. ErrorDocument 404 /statuses/demo-404.html ErrorDocument 403 /statuses/demo-403.html And the live needs to go to similarly name files. ErrorDocument 404 /statuses/live-404.html ErrorDocument 403 /statuses/live-403.html So far I have tried placing an .htaccess file in both directories with the ErrorDocument directives setup pointing to the specific files, the 404 works fine and references the correct page. However, the 403s do not work and revert to the server default when trying to access forbidden folders within the demo directory, the logs indicate the following: [Wed Jun 16 04:47:44 2010] [crit] [client 115.64.131.144] (13)Permission denied: /home/abstract/public_html/demo/xxx/.htaccess pcfg_openfile: unable to check htaccess file, ensure it is readable Is this correct? Would apache revert to default because it is trying to look for the htaccess in a folder it doesn't have permission in? Why wouldn't it work it's way back through the folder tree? Can I make it do this?

  Read the article

• What does the @ symbol mean in a file's permission settings?

  - by Shiki

  I'm on MacOSX, I did ln -s on a directory and these are the results: -rwxrwxr-x@ 1 shiki admin 970332 Mar 6 16:38 apc.so -rwxrwxr-x@ 1 shiki admin 653884 Mar 6 16:38 eaccelerator.so -rw-rw-r--@ 1 shiki admin 60064 Mar 6 16:38 gettext.a -rwxrwxr-x@ 1 shiki admin 80320 Mar 6 16:38 gettext.so -rw-rw-r--@ 1 shiki admin 514784 Mar 6 16:38 imap.a -rwxrwxr-x@ 1 shiki admin 3886132 Mar 6 16:38 imap.so What do those @ symbols mean?

  Read the article

• SharePoint web services not protected?

  - by Philipp Schmid

  Using WSS 3.0, we have noticed that while users can be restricted to access only certain sub-sites of a site collection through permission settings, the same doesn't seem to be true for web services, such as /_vti_bin/Lists.asmx! Here's our experimental setup: http://formal/test : 'test' site collection - site1 : first site in test site collection, user1 is member - site2 : second site in test site collection, user2 is member With this setup, using a web browser user2 can: - access http://formal/test/site2/Default.aspx - cannot access http://formal/test/site1/Default.aspx That's what is expected. To our surprise however, using the code below, user2 can retrieve the names of the lists in site1, something he should not have access to! Is that by (unfortunate) design, or is there a configuration setting we've missed that would prevent user2 from retrieving the names of lists in site1? Is this going to be different in SharePoint 2010? Here's the web service code used in the experiment: class Program { static readonly string _url ="http://formal/sites/research/site2/_vti_bin/Lists.asmx"; static readonly string _user = "user2"; static readonly string _password = "password"; static readonly string _domain = "DOMAIN"; static void Main(string[] args) { try { ListsSoapClient service = GetServiceClient(_url, _user, _password, _domain); var result = service.GetListCollection(); Console.WriteLine(result.Value); } catch (Exception ex) { Console.WriteLine(ex.ToString()); } } private static ListsSoapClient GetServiceClient(string url, string userName, string password, string domain) { BasicHttpBinding binding = new BasicHttpBinding(BasicHttpSecurityMode.TransportCredentialOnly); binding.Security.Transport.ClientCredentialType = HttpClientCredentialType.Ntlm; ListsSoapClient service = new ListsSoapClient(binding, new System.ServiceModel.EndpointAddress(url)); service.ClientCredentials.UserName.Password = password; service.ClientCredentials.UserName.UserName = (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(domain)) ? domain + "\\" + userName : userName; return service; } }

  Read the article

• Why does cifs asks for su rights to write any data into it?

  - by Denys S.

  I'm mounting a windows share as follows: sudo mount -t cifs //192.168.178.49/public -o users,username=name,dom=domain,password=pword /mnt/nas Then I'm trying to create a simple file with some basic text: touch /mnt/nas/me.txt And get an error, however, the file is created (contains 0B of data though): touch: cannot touch ‘me.txt’: Permission denied With sudo it works flawless. How can I allow my current user to write data to the share? Is there a mount option?

  Read the article

• Grant permission for specific other AD users to unlock/log out user from PC

  - by Simon Needham

  What I'm looking to do is permission a Windows PC (ideally XP but if a later OS version is required so be it) so that a select group of users can unlock the machine, logging the current user out. This something that a Local Admin for the machine would be able to do from a locked screen, however, I'd like to avoid granting Local Admin rights to this group of users if I can. The background here is that this machine is 80% used by one person but is treated as a 'shared machine' on days that the primary user is not around. It's usefull that everybody using the machine can carry on using their own accounts with all the personalisations they are used to. I'd also like to void logging the primary user out every night. No one else in the firm has to put up with that and she does use the machine herself most of the time.

  Read the article

• Make a socket as a user but make it readable and writable by another

  - by user1598585

  I have a software that is run under user A, this software creates a socket in /sockets and the socket should be readable and writable by user B. I have tried setting the directory to have ownership A:A or A:B but when user A creates the socket, it ends up with uid A and gid A. Using ACLs has not helped so far, the default mask is preventing the rights to be effective. rw permisions for B will always turn into jusr r. If what I make is not a socket it will work fine. How can I best accomplish this task? (It is for a web-server where the web-application makes the socket and the web-server software forwards requests to it)

  Read the article

• How to make new copied file always 777 permission

  - by Master

  I have one Linux ext3 partition shared on network. Now when some one copy files from MAc , then other people can't change the file dute to permission problem. Is there any way that ane new file which is copied will always have 777 permission and some specific user as owner of file not the default user thanks

  Read the article

• Mac OS X : Why does chown report "Operation not permitted"?

  - by josef.van.niekerk

  I am trying to do the following on my Mac (10.6.7) : sudo chown myusername:wheel ./entries but Unix/Mac is returning "Operation not permitted". When I ls -lash, the culprit file, it looks as follows: 8 -rwxrwxrwx 1 myusername staff 394B Apr 26 23:26 entries I've tried sudo, I've tried sudo su, nothing works? Any ideas what's up? The files I'm trying to chmod I've copied from my old Ubuntu box, most of the files have successfully chmodded recursively, just this one is stuck and I don't understand why.

  Read the article

• Using pscp and getting permission denied

  - by Espen

  I'm using pscp to transfer files to a virtual ubuntu server using this command: pscp test.php user@server:/var/www/test.php and I get the error permission denied. If I try to transfer to the folder /home/user/ I have no problems. I guess this has to do with that the user I'm using doesn't have access to the folder /var/www/. When I use SSH I have to use sudo to get access to the /var/www/ path - and I do. Is it possible to specify that pscp should "sudo" transfers to the server so I can get access to the /var/www/ path and actually be able to transfer files to this folder?

  Read the article

• How can I change my mysql user that has all privileges on a database to only have select privileges on one specific table?

  - by Glenn

  I gave my mysql user the "GRANT ALL PRIVILEGES ON database_name.* to my_user@localhost" treatment. Now I would like to be more granular, starting with lowering privileges on a specific table. I am hoping mysql has or can be set to follow a "least amount of privileges" policy, so I can keep the current setup and lower it for the one table. But I have not seen anything like this in the docs or online. Other than removing the DB level grant and re-granting on a table level, is there a way to get the same result by adding another rule?

  Read the article

• Failure to copy files with ownership/ACL information on a Windows Server 2008 R2 machine

  - by darklion

  I'm attempting to copy a directory tree, maintaining its ownership information using the command: XCOPY S:\ProjectsDefault\Tempalte\admin S:\Projects\00\111\admin /S /E /I /O the command gives an Access denied error message, and while it does create the directory tree, the ownership and ACL information is not copied. This is being done on a Windows 2008 R2 Server which has mounted a share from a Windows 2003 R2 domain controller. The user has been been granted full access to the share and is a member of the Domain Admins security group. Oddly enough, the command does work if performed on a different (Windows 2003 R2 Server). (It also works if done using the Domain Administrator account on the 2008 server.)

  Read the article

• Freebsd write access to group directory

  - by Nikolay Sergeev

  Hi. I'm confused. I have two users in system: u1 and u2, and group u1. both u1 and u2 belong to g1. I've created directory /opt/d with properties: drwxrwxr-x 2 u1 u1 512B May 26 17:55 d AFAIK, this configuration allows both users write to directory. But, from u2: touch /opt/d/x touch: /opt/d/x: Permission denied And same configuration on RHEL5 works fine. What i've missed? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Allowing non-admins to run programs as admins on Windows 7

  - by Josh

  On *nix, admins can use the setuid flag to allow non-admins to run certain programs that would otherwise require admin privileges. Is there any way to do something similar in Windows 7? This question has been asked here before for Windows XP, and the answers were generally unsatisfying. I'm wondering if Windows 7 provides a better way. One idea I can think of would be to use Microsoft's Subsystem for UNIX Applications, but I'd rather not install that on every user's system if I can avoid it. Another idea I can think of (which would work on XP too, but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere) would be to create a RunAsAdmin application that runs as a service, that takes a whitelist of "safe" apps and can be asked (from a command line, batch file or script) to run any program on the list as LocalSystem or whatever account the service uses. Is this possible? Are there any solutions that aren't as clunky as those? Or, has anyone implemented either of the above techniques successfully?

  Read the article

• How can I setup a group writeable directory?

  - by meder

  $ whoami meder $ cd /var/www $ sudo mkdir html $ sudo groupadd web $ sudo usermod -a -G web meder $ sudo usermod -a -G web medertest $ sudo chown meder:web html $ sudo chmod -R g+rwx html The problem is, anytime I create a new file in /var/www/html even though the group is set to web, it is only writeable by the original user. I was given the advice of setting the umask to be 002 because the default is what causes the problems. But I would have to do this for all users in that group, and as far as I know it would be tedious having all of them modify ~/.bashrc to have umask 002. Even if I can do it myself with a shell command for all of those users, it still seems too tedious. Can anyone offer any advice on having a group writeable directory?

  Read the article

• Apache unable to write to files and folders on Fedora 16

  - by mickburkejnr

  I've recently installed Fedora 16 on a new PC, and I'm intending to use it for developing my websites. I've set up Apache to host multiple development sites on the machine. Right now though, I am trying to install a PHP framework (Symfony2) and I'm unable to install it on to the web server. It comes back with an error saying that it's unable to write to the cache folder on the server. I have checked and modified the folder so that it is writeable, but still the error keeps being displayed? What am I doing wrong?

  Read the article

• Deleting "undeletable" files in Vista

  - by Nik Reiman

  I recently upgraded my workstation from XP SP3 to Vista Business, and during the upgrade Windows moved my old C:\Windows directory to C:\Windows.old. I got all of the stuff I needed out of that folder, but there are six "undeletable" files there so I cannot remove it. They are: Windows.old\Program1\Adobe\Reader 9.0\Resource\CMap\Identity-H Windows.old\Program1\Adobe\Reader 9.0\Resource\CMap\Identity-V Windows.old\Program1\Common Files\Adobe\Acrobat\ActiveX\AcroIEHelper.dll Windows.old\Program1\Common Files\Adobe\Acrobat\ActiveX\AcroIEHelperShim.dll Windows.old\Program1\Common Files\Adobe\Acrobat\ActiveX\AcroPDF.dll Windows.old\Program1\Common Files\Adobe\Acrobat\ActiveX\pdfshell.dll Whenever I try to delete the files either through explorer or a command line, I get a permission denied error. I have tried to grant myself full permission on the files, but again, permission denied. I don't even have acrobat installed on my Vista machine, and I uninstalled Adobe updater. However, I still can't manage to get rid of these files. How do I nuke them for good? Edit: I was able to take ownership of the files, but I still can't delete them. Renaming them did not work, as I was denied permission to do that as well. I'll try booting up in safe mode and getting rid of them there. Edit II: Booting up into safe mode did not allow me to delete the files. Bummer.

  Read the article

• Deleting another user's diretories from my own

  - by kwatford

  I am a non-root user, and have made a directory into which other users in my group can write. The directory is setgid, so files and directories within it have the same group. I can delete files placed into this directory, but if a user creates a subdirectory with files in it, I can't seem to delete those. Is there something special I can do (other than, say, bothering the user in question or the sysadmin about it) to get rid of this subdirectory?

  Read the article

• This operation has been cancelled due to restrictions in effect on this computer

  - by Dan

  I have this HUGELY irritating problem on Windows 7 (x64). Whenever I click on ANY link (that exists on a Word document, Excel or Outlook), I get an alert box with the message: This operation has been canceled due to restrictions in effect on this computer I have been scouring my settings and the Internet for a solution, but to no avail. What is the reason for this problem? It even happens when I click anchors in word document. That is, I can't even click on an entry in a Table of Contents to go to the appropriate page - I get this same error then. Is this a Windows 7 thing? Is there any way to turn this off?

  Read the article

• Application runs fine manually but fails as a scheduled task

  - by user42540

  I wasn't sure if this should go here or on stackoverflow. I have an application that loads some files from a network share (the input folder), extracts certain data from them and saves new files (zips them with SharpZLib) on a different network share (output folder). This application runs fine when you open it directly, but when it is set to a scheduled task, it fails in numerous places. This application is scheduled on a Win 2003 server. Let me say right off the bat, the scheduled task is set to use the same login account that I am currently logged in with, so it's not because it's using the LocalSystem account. Something else is going on here. Originally, the application was assigning a drive letter to the input folder using WNetGetConnectionA(). I don't remember why this was done, someone else on our team did that and she's gone now. I think there was some issue with using the WinZip command line with a UNC path. I switched from the WinZip command line utility to using SharpZLib because there were other issues with using the WinZip command line. Anyway, the application failed when trying to assign a drive letter with the error "connection already established." That wasn't true and even after trying WNetCancelConnection(), it still didn't work. Then I decided to just map the drive manually on the server. Then when the app calls Directory.Exists(inputFolderPath) it returns false, even though it does exist. So, for whatever reason, I cannot read this directory from within the application. I can manually navigate to this folder in Windows Explorer and open files. The app log file shows that the user executing it on the schedule is the user I expect, not LocalSystem. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Prevent users from creating / copying / moving anything except .exe

  - by webnoob

  We have a program that compiles executables into a folder into c:\bin. Ideally I would like to share this folder so users can access the exe's within but stop them creating any other files in there. The reason for this is to stop users grabbing source code and putting it in a shared drive then taking it. We have a Domain Controller setup and all the users belong to a specific security group. Is there any way to achieve this? EDIT: TO clarify, I need to stop users from creating or moving files INTO the C:\bin folder which are not executables.

  Read the article

• Why do Windows 7 & 8 have different default behaviour when trying to modify contents of protected folder

  - by Ben

  Here's the situation: I have a Windows 7 PC and a Windows 8 PC and I'm logged in as the same domain user on both machines. My domain user is in the local Administrator group on both. When I run cmd.exe on each machine and then attempt to do this (also on both machines) mkdir "c:\Program Files\cheese" the Windows 8 PC gives an "Access Denied" error, while it works fine on the Windows 7 PC. I understand that C:\Program Files is a protected folder and I'm not interested in a debate on the morals of writing to such a folder directly. But I am interested in understanding what exactly has changed in Windows 8 to cause this. I don't seem to be able to find anything that acknowledges or explains this change in behaviour in Windows 8.

  Read the article

• Apache permission Problems

  - by swg1cor14

  Ok all my files and folders are set as owner of vsftpd:nogroup. FTP program can upload and create and do everything. But when I use the PHP command mkdir, I get a Permission Denied even though the folder its creating it in is set to chmod 777. IF i set the base folder to user www-data and group www-data, PHP mkdir will work. However, I can't use FTP to delete or upload to that folder. /uploads is base folder. I use PHP mkdir to create a directory in there: if (!is_dir($_SERVER['DOCUMENT_ROOT'] . "/uploads/" . $_REQUEST['clientID'] . '/video/')) { @mkdir($_SERVER['DOCUMENT_ROOT'] . "/uploads/" . $_REQUEST['clientID'] . '/video/', 0777); } If /uploads is vsftpd:nogroup then PHP mkdir will give a Permission Denied error. If /uploads is www-data:www-data then PHP mkdir WILL work, but I cant continue to FTP anything in that folder that was just created. If /uploads is vsftpd:www-data then PHP mkdir will give a Permission Denied error. How can I create a directory with PHP and still be able to access it via FTP?

  Read the article

• Write to windows share mounted in Ubuntu

  - by aidan

  I used to mount a windows share in Ubuntu server, with an entry in fstab: //data/SharedFolder /media/SharedFolder/ smbfs user,defaults,credentials=/root/.creds,uid=root,gid=root 0 0 /root/.creds is a text file with three lines, my username, password and domain. Users on the ubuntu server could write to this mount, but then I upgraded to 10.04 and now only root can write. Regular users can still read though. mount currently tells me: //data/SharedFolder on /media/SharedFolder type cifs (rw,mand,noexec,nosuid,nodev) How do I make it world writeable again? Thanks

  Read the article

• How do large companies handle software updates for users without administrative rights?

  - by CT

  I just started working for a small-medium size company doing IT support. Maybe 150 or less users. Right now every user has administrative rights to their own machine. This allows them to install updates or whatever else they would like to. I'm tired of getting on user's machines that are bloated with crap they put on themselves. So my first thought would be to take away administrative rights to their computer. This would also have other advantages such as preventing a lot of drive-by malware on the web etc. The problem arises that users are unable to install updates. (Even though I find most ignore these anyway) How do large companies handle software updates on all client machines? EDIT: Windows environment. Most servers are Windows Server 2003 Enterprise. Clients are all Windows. Win XP, Vista, and 7.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291  | Next Page >