Search Results

Search found 4775 results on 191 pages for 'permissions'.

Page 4/191 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Restricting permissions to individual documents on SharePoint

  - by wahle509

  Here's what I'm trying to do: I would like to create a list of documents on a site in my company's SharePoint site. Each document should have specific user's permissions to view and edit it. For example: The list is for performance reports. John has his out there called "John_PR_09.docx". Only him and his supervisor should have permissions to view, edit, or do anything to it. And then another employee has hers out there with permissions for only her and her supervisor, and so on... I have tested this out with a document that I removed the groups and users from (since they inherit permissions from it's parent) and only gave my user account permissions to. I then asked someone else to try and open and she could, she even wrote "TEST" on the document and saved it. What am I doing wrong? I thought I stopped it from inheriting permissions from it's parent and only gave myself rights to edit it.

  Read the article

• Comparison in Monit Permissions Testing

  - by beanland

  I'm trying to use Monit to check the permissions of a particular directory, but I only care that it's readable to all users. I don't care about any other permissions (write, execute) for the owner, group, or all. I also don't care about any special permissions. Knowing that I can't change the permissions of this directory, and with the possibility of another administrator changing these permissions without affecting my processes that rely on this directory (i.e., granting or revoking write access to the group), is it possible to check for a minimum permission in Monit? I have this which is currently working: check directory archive path /var/home/archive/ if failed perm 0755 then alert But I would like to have something like tihs: check directory archive path /var/home/archive/ if failed perm > 444 then alert This is failing for me. Is it possible to use comparison operators in Monit's permissions checking? If not, are there any workarounds?

  Read the article

• Set umask, set permissions, and set ACL, but SAMBA isn't using those?

  - by Kris Anderson

  I'm running on Ubuntu Server 12.04. I have a folder called Music and I want the default folder permissions to be 775 and the default file to then be 664. I set the default permissions on the Music folder to be 775. I configured ACL to use these default permissions as well: file: Music owner: kris group: kris flags: ss- user::rwx group::rwx other::r-x default:user::rwx default:group::rwx default:other::r-x I also changed the default umask for my user account, kris, to 002 in .profile. Shouldn't and new file/folder now use those permissions when writing to the Samba share? ACL should work with Samba from what I can gather. Currently, if I write to that folder using my mac, folders are getting 755 and files 644. I have another app on my mac called GoodSync which which is able to sync a local directory on my mac to a network samba share, but those permissions are even worse. files are being written as 700 using that program. So it looks like Samba is allowing the host/program to determine the folder/file permissions. What changes do I need to make to force the permissions I want regardless of what the host tries to write on the server?

  Read the article

• files have no ownership permissions and can't assign ownership

  - by Force Flow

  I'm having problems with file permissions on a server 2008 R1 server. Office 2010 tmp files are being created, and don't have any security permissions assigned. They aren't being deleted, I can't assign ownership, and I can't delete them. I downloaded and ran the sysinternals tool handle.exe. When running it for the first time, handle64.exe was created, but not assigned any permissions. I cannot assign ownership and cannot delete it. Seemingly random files in random places don't seem to have any permissions assigned. Access is denied when attempting to change ownership to administrator or the administrators group. If I try to replace inheritable permissions of the folder these files are in, access is denied for the files with no permissions. I attempted to use subinacl to view the ownership information on the files that had no permissions, but access was denied here as well. I also tried setting the owner with setacl in an elevated cmd window, but access was denied as well. This problem only surfaced in the last few days, and I'm unsure as what the cause is or how to correct it.

  Read the article

• Effective Permissions displays incorrect information

  - by Konrads

  I have a security mystery :) Effective permissions tab shows that a few sampled users (IT ops) have any and all rights (all boxes are ticked). The permissions show that Local Administrators group has full access and some business users have too of which the sampled users are not members of. Local Administrators group has some AD IT Ops related groups of which the sampled users, again, appear not be members. The sampled users are not members of Domain Administrators either. I've tried tracing backwards (from permissions to user) and forwards (user to permission) and could not find anything. At this point, there are three options: I've missed something and they are members of some groups. There's another way of getting full permissions. Effective Permissions are horribly wrong. Is there a way to retrieve the decision logic of Effective Permissions? Any hints, tips, ideas? UPDATE: The winning answer is number 3 - Effective Permissions are horribly wrong. When comparing outputs as ran from the server logged on as admin and when running it as a regular user from remote computer show different results: All boxes (FULL) access and on server - None. Actually testing the access, of course, denies access.

  Read the article

• CentOS 5.4 NFS v4 client file permissions differ from original files & NFS Share file contents

  - by p4guru

  Having a strange problem with NFS share and file permissions on the 1 out of the 2 NFS clients, web1 has file permissions issues but web2 is fine. web1 and web2 are load balanced web servers. So questions are: how do I ensure NFS share file contents retain the same permissions for user/group as the original files on web1 server like they do on web2 server ? how do I reverse what I did on web1, i tried unmount command and said command not found ? Information: I'm using 3 dedicated server setup. All 3 servers CentOS 5.4 64bit based. servers are as follows: web1 - nfs client with file permissions issues web2 - nfs client file permissions are OKAY db1 - nfs share at /nfsroot web2 nfs client was setup by my web host, while web1 was setup by me. I did the following commands on web1 and it worked with updating db1 nfsroot share at /nfsroot/site_css with latest files on web1 but the file permissions don't stick even if i use tar with -p command to perserve file permissions ? cd /home/username/public_html/forums/script/ tar -zcp site_css/ > site_css.tar.gz mount -t nfs4 nfsshareipaddress:/site_css /home/username/public_html/forums/scripts/site_css/ -o rw,soft cd /home/username/public_html/forums/script/ tar -zxf site_css.tar.gz But checking on web1 file permissions no longer username user/group but owned by nobody ? but web2 file permissions correct ? This is only a problem for web1 while web2 is correct ? Looks like numeric ids aren't the same ? Not sure how to correct this ? web1 with incorrect user/group of nobody ls -alh /home/username/public_html/forums/scripts/site_css total 48K drwxrwxrwx 2 nobody nobody 4.0K Feb 22 02:37 ./ drwxr-xr-x 3 username username 4.0K Feb 22 02:43 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css web1 numeric ids ls -n /home/username/public_html/forums/scripts/site_css total 48 drwxrwxrwx 2 99 99 4096 Feb 22 02:37 ./ drwxr-xr-x 3 503 500 4096 Feb 22 02:43 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 99 99 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 99 99 5876 Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 99 99 5877 Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 99 99 5877 Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 99 99 5876 Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css web2 correct username user/group permissions ls -alh /home/username/public_html/forums/scripts/site_css total 48K drwxrwxrwx 2 root root 4.0K Feb 22 02:37 ./ drwxr-xr-x 3 username username 4.0K Dec 2 14:51 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css web2 numeric ids ls -n /home/username/public_html/forums/scripts/site_css total 48 drwxrwxrwx 2 503 500 4096 Feb 22 02:37 ./ drwxr-xr-x 3 503 500 4096 Dec 2 14:51 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 503 500 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 503 500 5876 Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 503 500 5877 Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 503 500 5877 Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 503 500 5876 Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css I checked db1 /nfsroot/site_css and user/group ownership was incorrect for newer files dated feb22 owned by root and not username ? on db1 originally incorrect root assigned user/group for new feb22 dated files ls -alh /nfsroot/site_css total 44K drwxrwxrwx 2 root root 4.0K Feb 22 02:37 . drwxr-xr-x 17 root root 4.0K Feb 17 12:06 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw------- 1 username nfs 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw------- 1 username nfs 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css Then I chmod them all on db1 and chown to set to right ownership on db1 so it looks like below on db1 once corrected the newer feb22 dated files ls -alh /nfsroot/site_css total 44K drwxrwxrwx 2 root root 4.0K Feb 22 02:37 . drwxr-xr-x 17 root root 4.0K Feb 17 12:06 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css but still web1 shows owned by nobody ? while web2 shows correct permissions ? web1 still with incorrect user/group of nobody not matching what web2 and db1 are set to ? ls -alh /home/username/public_html/forums/scripts/site_css total 48K drwxrwxrwx 2 nobody nobody 4.0K Feb 22 02:37 ./ drwxr-xr-x 3 username username 4.0K Feb 22 02:43 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css Just so confusing so any help is very very much appreciated! thanks

  Read the article

• CentOS 5.4 NFS v4 client file permissions differ from original files & NFS Share file contents

  - by p4guru

  Having a strange problem with NFS share and file permissions on the 1 out of the 2 NFS clients, web1 has file permissions issues but web2 is fine. web1 and web2 are load balanced web servers. So questions are: how do I ensure NFS share file contents retain the same permissions for user/group as the original files on web1 server like they do on web2 server ? how do I reverse what I did on web1, i tried unmount command and said command not found ? Information: I'm using 3 dedicated server setup. All 3 servers CentOS 5.4 64bit based. servers are as follows: web1 - nfs client with file permissions issues web2 - nfs client file permissions are OKAY db1 - nfs share at /nfsroot web2 nfs client was setup by my web host, while web1 was setup by me. I did the following commands on web1 and it worked with updating db1 nfsroot share at /nfsroot/site_css with latest files on web1 but the file permissions don't stick even if i use tar with -p command to perserve file permissions ? cd /home/username/public_html/forums/script/ tar -zcp site_css/ > site_css.tar.gz mount -t nfs4 nfsshareipaddress:/site_css /home/username/public_html/forums/scripts/site_css/ -o rw,soft cd /home/username/public_html/forums/script/ tar -zxf site_css.tar.gz But checking on web1 file permissions no longer username user/group but owned by nobody ? but web2 file permissions correct ? This is only a problem for web1 while web2 is correct ? Looks like numeric ids aren't the same ? Not sure how to correct this ? web1 with incorrect user/group of nobody ls -alh /home/username/public_html/forums/scripts/site_css total 48K drwxrwxrwx 2 nobody nobody 4.0K Feb 22 02:37 ./ drwxr-xr-x 3 username username 4.0K Feb 22 02:43 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css web1 numeric ids ls -n /home/username/public_html/forums/scripts/site_css total 48 drwxrwxrwx 2 99 99 4096 Feb 22 02:37 ./ drwxr-xr-x 3 503 500 4096 Feb 22 02:43 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 99 99 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 99 99 5876 Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 99 99 5877 Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 99 99 5877 Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 99 99 5876 Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css web2 correct username user/group permissions ls -alh /home/username/public_html/forums/scripts/site_css total 48K drwxrwxrwx 2 root root 4.0K Feb 22 02:37 ./ drwxr-xr-x 3 username username 4.0K Dec 2 14:51 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css web2 numeric ids ls -n /home/username/public_html/forums/scripts/site_css total 48 drwxrwxrwx 2 503 500 4096 Feb 22 02:37 ./ drwxr-xr-x 3 503 500 4096 Dec 2 14:51 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 503 500 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 503 500 5876 Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 503 500 5877 Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 503 500 5877 Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 503 500 5876 Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css I checked db1 /nfsroot/site_css and user/group ownership was incorrect for newer files dated feb22 owned by root and not username ? on db1 originally incorrect root assigned user/group for new feb22 dated files ls -alh /nfsroot/site_css total 44K drwxrwxrwx 2 root root 4.0K Feb 22 02:37 . drwxr-xr-x 17 root root 4.0K Feb 17 12:06 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw------- 1 username nfs 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw------- 1 username nfs 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css Then I chmod them all on db1 and chown to set to right ownership on db1 so it looks like below on db1 once corrected the newer feb22 dated files ls -alh /nfsroot/site_css total 44K drwxrwxrwx 2 root root 4.0K Feb 22 02:37 . drwxr-xr-x 17 root root 4.0K Feb 17 12:06 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css but still web1 shows owned by nobody ? while web2 shows correct permissions ? web1 still with incorrect user/group of nobody not matching what web2 and db1 are set to ? ls -alh /home/username/public_html/forums/scripts/site_css total 48K drwxrwxrwx 2 nobody nobody 4.0K Feb 22 02:37 ./ drwxr-xr-x 3 username username 4.0K Feb 22 02:43 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css Just so confusing so any help is very very much appreciated! thanks

  Read the article

• Setting Up Win2008 R2 Server - IIS_IUSRS Permissions

  - by leen3o

  I am setting up a web server and notice out the box it gives IIS_IUSRS read & execute (and as a result list folder contents) permissions on the wwwroot. I'm trying to make sure its secure as possible, and just wondering if its ok to leave that? On my last server (Win2003) I only gave 'read' permissions to users on the wwwroot and then manually added the write / execute permissions on folders as needed. Just wondering if everyone else leaves the permissions as they are?

  Read the article

• Rails /tmp/cache/assets permissions issue using Debian virtual machine hosted on OS X Lion

  - by Jim

  I am running Parallels Desktop 7 on OS X Lion. I have a VM with Debian installed, and inside that VM I setup a Rails development environment. I am using Parallels Tools to share out my OS X home directory to the VM - the goal here is to run the Rails server on the VM, but host the files on OS X (so they are automatically backed up, and so I can use tools like Textmate to develop with). Everything seems to work with the shared directory - my Debian user can read, write, and execute files. However, when I cloned a recent Rails project from Git, I got an error message when it tried to compile the CSS assets. My symptoms are exactly the same as in the question: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7556774/rails-sprocket-error-compiling-css-assest-chown-issue I believe this is permissions-based, but it is really weird. My entire Rails project directory has permissions set to 777 and my Debian user owns it. If I navigate into /tmp/cache/assets, those permissions are the same. However, the three-character directories Rails is creating (DCE, DA1, D05, etc...) are being created without write permissions! If I refresh the Rails page a few times, about 4 or 5 (with Rails creating new three-character directories every time), eventually it will create one of the directories with the proper 777 permissions and everything will work! This will persist until I make a change to the CSS files and it has to recompile. Does anyone have any idea what might be going on here? I can't fathom why it is creating temp directories with incorrect permissions, or why after a few refreshes the good permissions kick in and it works... It definitely seems to be an issue with the share, since if I move the project into a different directory on the VM, it seems to work fine. On the OS X side, I've given the shared folder 777 permissions as well, but no dice...any ideas? Update I've found that the number of times I need to refresh before it works is not random - it has to do with how many assets are being compiled. For example, if I edit one of my CSS files, and there are four CSS files in the app/assets/stylesheets directory, I have to refresh four times before the app will finally work without the operation not permitted error...

  Read the article

• Windows 7: "Replace All Child Object Permissions" Doesn't Stay Checked

  - by raywood

  I right-click on a top-level folder in Windows Explorer. I choose Properties Security tab Advanced Change Permissions. I check "Replace all child object permissions with inheritable permissions from this object" Apply. I get a Windows Security dialog that says, "Setting security information on" the list of objects that flashes by. But now the "Replace all child object permissions" box is unchecked. What is happening here?

  Read the article

• DFS replication and the SYSTEM user (NTFS permissions)

  - by HopelessN00b

  Question for which I'm having trouble finding an answer on Google or Technet... Does granting the SYSTEM user permissions to DFS-shared files and folders have any effect on DFS replication? (And while we're at it, is there any good reason not to let SYSTEM have permissions to DFS-shared files?) It comes up because I have a collection of DFS namespaces and folders that I'm not able to make someone else's problem, and while troubleshooting a problem where one DFS replica just wasn't replicating with another for no discernible reason, I observed that the SYSTEM didn't have any permissions granted to any of the files or folders in the folder in question. So I set SYSTEM to have full control and propagated it down, and our DFS health diagnostic reports went from showing a backlog of ~80 files to a backlog of ~100,000... and things started replicating, including a number of files that had been missing on one server or the other (so more than just the permissions changes started replicating). Naturally, this made me curious as to whether or not DFS needs the SYSTEM account to have permissions to do its work, or if perhaps it was just any change to folder tree in question that prompted DFS to jump into action. If it matters, our DFS namespaces were set up under 2000/2003, and I have just recently finished upgrading all the servers to 2008 R2 or 2012 (with UAC enabled, blech), but have not yet gotten around to raising the DFS namespace functional levels to Server 2008. (And bonus points if anyone has an official Microsoft article on NTFS file permissions and the SYSTEM account as it pertains to DFS or network files.)

  Read the article

• Linux group permissions getting overwritten by owner

  - by Andy

  I am not a user of Linux, but I am encountering some permissions problems with it that I hope someone can shed some light on. Bit of background: A colleague of mine has a Linux box (running Debian I believe) with an SVN repository on it. The repository directory and files 'owner' is my colleauge. We are both members of a group called 'users'. He manages several projects both Linux and Windows apps, while I have one Windows app. For the Windows apps, we both use TortoiseSVN via an SSH link to commit/update. Performing the command 'ls -l' shows the repository files and folders on the Linux box to have the following permissions: -rwxrwx--- john users However, when my colleauge commits to the repository, the permissions change to: -rwxrwx--- john john This then means I get 'Permission denied' when trying to access the repository myself as it appears that the group permissions have been overwritten with only 'owner' permissions. To fix this, a 'chown -R' command is applied to the files/folders to set the permissions back to owner/group, but each time he writes to the repository, the issue repeats. I'm not sure if this is solely an SVN problem, or a more fundamental owner/group issue. Anyone any clue on how to stop this happening, or where to go and look? I'm trying to help out my colleague who is having some trouble resolving this issue. Apologies for the vague info, I hope I have conveyed the problem clear enough. Like I say, I am not a Linux user, I have only put down what I have managed to pick up from looking over his shoulder. Thanks for any pointers I can pass on!

  Read the article

• Combining AD permissions with FTP

  - by user64204

  We're using Windows Server 2008 with Active Directory controlling access to a network share. We've setup FTP so that people can access that share from outside (we used to use the PPTP VPN but for various reasons we need to switch to FTP). So far here is what we've managed to implement on the FTP: -The network share is used as the FTP root (defined as a UNC) and that is working fine. -AD authentication is working fine (wrong password and you stay out, good password you're in, password management in AD correctly synched with the FTP). -AD permissions are failing: the AD permissions on the content of the FTP root are ignored: it's either a user only has read or write access, but this applies to the whole FTP root, which obviously isn't suitable since that FTP root is initially our network share and files/folders have different AD permissions depending on people's groups... Whether we set the permissions through the share OR the FTP management interface, AD permissions are never enforced. Q1: Is that normal? Q2: If so what solutions exist to combine AD permissions with FTP on MS server 2008? Q3: If not, where should I look to fix the configuration?

  Read the article

• how to extract all permissions that a domain user have on the network

  - by Alexandre Jobin

  I would like to know all the permissions a windows domain user have in my network. Is there a way, with a script file or a tool, that can extract this kind of information by checking all the servers and computers in my network? I'm on a Microsoft network with Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows XP, Windows 7. The report should include these kind of informations: report all permissions that the domain user have (read, write, etc...) if the domain user is in a domain group, tell me the permissions that this group have in my network so the report could be something like this: Permissions for USER_A in the DOMAIN.COM the user is part of theses domain groups: GROUP_A GROUP_B SERVER_A W:\wwwRoot (R/W inherited from GROUP_A) W:\sharedFolder (R) SERVER_B c:\projects (R/W) c:\projects\project_a (R/W) c:\projects\project_b (R/W) c:\dumpfolder (R/W inherited from GROUP_B) COMPUTER_A LOCAL\Administrator c:\ (R/W)

  Read the article

• All my files uploaded have unusable permissions

  - by cosmicbdog

  I've just moved to a new server and have come across some strange permissions issues. Every file I upload has permissions of 600, owned by the user account and is also in the same group. With this permission, the server is unable to make changes to these files. The folder I'm uploading to (via regular ftp) has permissions of 755. Why are any new files I upload here given this permission of 600? And how do I change it so that files added are given permissions so they can be modified by the webserver?

  Read the article

• What linux permissions are need for www?

  - by Xeoncross

  I know that 777 is full read/write/execute permission for owner/group/other. So this doesn't seem to be needed as it leaves random users full permissions. What permissions are need to be used on /var/www so that... Source control like git or svn Normal users in a group like "websites" or added to "www-data" Servers like apache or lighthttpd And PHP/Perl/Ruby can all read, create, and run files there? If I'm correct, Ruby and PHP scripts are not "executed" directly - but passed to an interpreter. So there is no need for execute permission on files in /var/www. Therefore, it seems like the correct permission would be chmod -R 1660 which would make all files shareable by these four entities all files non-executable by mistake block everyone else from the directory entirely set the permission mode to "sticky" for all future files Is this correct? Update: I just realized that files and directories might need different permissions - I was talking about files above so i'm not sure what the directory permissions would need to be.

  Read the article

• Windows Shares / NTFS permissions on folder redirection in Active Directory

  - by Shawn Gradwell

  A client has folder redirection in AD setup on each user's Home Folder set to the Z:\ drive as \server\share\username. A Group Policy redirects the user's Documents to the user's Home Folder with the option 'Grant the user to exclusive rights to Documents' selected. The share on the server has permissions for the relevant user security group with 'Full Control', but each user's folder only have NTFS permissions only for 'CREATOR OWNER' and 'Domain Admins'. Why can the different users access other user's folders? I thought the most restrictive permissions applied effectively between the share and the NTFS permissions. Also, this setup has been like this for years, and this client recently updated all client computers to Windows 7. What is the best way to setup this redirection now? I assume only in Group Policy, also Basic Redirection - to create a folder for each user under the root path?

  Read the article

• NTFS permissions weird inheriance (second take!)

  - by Wil

  A complete re write of my previous question, in a different context. Basically, the issue is that when I create a new user within a new group, the new user has various permissions over various folders. I have deleted the group "users" from this user object, and it is simply a member of the group "test". I have created a folder called c:\foo, when I go to effective permissions under the security tab, I can see that the user "lockdown" has various permissions. As far as I can see, there is nothing that should allow lockdown access. The moment I remove users from this list, it behaves as I would expect, which makes me believe that for some strange reason, the users group behaves like the everyone group and is controlled by the system. That being said, I cannot understand this as under the list, it is not there - and further to this, with the same permissions as the first picture, guest does not have access. This has stumped me and any help is appreciated! (Tested in Windows 2003 and 2008) edit - Should also say that if I go to Effective Permission for the group the user is in, there are no boxes checked, so it is somehow just the user that is getting the permissions from somewhere.

  Read the article

• Improved ACL editor for Windows file permissions

  - by Myrddin Emrys

  I have recently been doing a lot of updates to our network drive permissions... such as consolidating direct user permissions into group permissions. The built-in ACL editor (Advanced Security Settings dialog) is adequate, but its limitations are frustrating, particularly that it cannot be resized and you cannot look at the list of existing entries at the same time as you are adding a new entry. Is there an improved ACL editor that can be downloaded to supplement the default one?

  Read the article

• SQL Server NETWORK SERVICE account permissions

  - by RemotecUk

  My SQL Server Windows service is set to use the NETWORK SERVICE account. The server is installed to C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL10_50.MSSQLSERVER\MSSQL. However looking at the permissions on that folder, NETWORK SERVICE does not have any permissions. The groups which are allowed access to that folder are... CREATOR OWNER - who is this? SYSTEM - sounds fine - so that Windows can access the folder I presume? SQLServerMSSQLUser$Computer_Name$MSSQLSERVER - this is the interesting one - what is this? Administrators Users If NETWORK SERVICE is a user with minimal permissions on the system and looks to the O/S as someone connecting from a network how does it have permissions to access any files in the SQL Server install folder? Thanks.

  Read the article

• push commits to git (gitolite) repository messes up file permissions (no more trac access)

  - by klemens

  already posted here so feel free to answer there. everytime i commit/push something to the git server the file permissions change (all added/edited files in the repository have no read and execute access for the group). thus trac can't access the repository. do I need to change permissions of the folder differently? chmod u=rwx,g=rx,o= -R /home/git/repositories or do i need to setup gitolite somehow to write files with different permissions??? regards, klemens

  Read the article

• File permissions on web server

  - by plua

  I have just read this useful article on files permissions, and I am about to implement a as-strict-as-possible file permissions policy on our webserver. Our situation: we have a web server accessed through sftp by different users from within our company, and we have the general public accessing Apache - sometimes uploading files through PHP. I distinguish folders and files by their use. So based on this reading, here is my plan: All people who need to upload files will have separate users. But all of those users will belong to two groups: uploaders, and webserver. Apache will belong to the group webserver. Directories Permission: 771 Owner: user:uploaders Explanation: to access files in the folder, everybody needs to have execute permission. Only uploaders will be adding/removing files, so they also get r+w permission. Files within the web-root Permission: 664 Owner: user:uploaders Explanation: they will be uploaded and changed by different users, so both owner and group need to have w+r permissions. Webserver needs to only read files, so r permission only. Upload-directories Permission: 771 Owner: user:webserver Explanation: when files need to be uploaded, Apache needs to be able to write to this directory. But I figure it is safer to change the owner to webroot, thus giving Apache sufficient privileges (and all uploaders also belong to this group and will have the same permissions), while safeguarding from "others" writing to this folder. Uploaded files Permission: 664 Owner: user:webserver Explanation: after uploading Apache might need to delete files, but this is no problem because they have w+r permission of the folder. So no need to make this file any more accessible than r access for group. Being not an expert on file permissions, my question is whether or not this is the best possible policy for our situation? Any suggestions welcome.

  Read the article

• Linux: How to allow group members to set/change permissions on a file

  - by KThompson

  I thought I had a good understanding of how permissions worked on linux. I have folder where it and everything inside has the owner "me" and the group "group". I gave the group rwx access on all the files and still members of the group cannot modify permissions on any files. I'm using Redhat Enterprise Linux 5 Is it possible to allow group members to modify permissions on file and not just the owner? How? Thanks in advance

  Read the article

• How to perform this Windows 7 permissions change on many files via GUI or command line

  - by hippietrail

  After using my external hard drive on another Windows 7 computer to tweak photos with Windows Live Photo Gallery then upload them to Facebook I found the modified images were now not visible on the original Windows 7 computer. I'm not sure if the things I tried to get it working subsequently changed anything, but I do know this is the sequence of actions that makes the permissions of the modified files match those of the unmodified files: Right click on broken image file, select "Properties" On the "Security" tab press the "Advanced" button In the "Permissions" tab press the "Continue" button with the shield icon on it Tick the box marked "Include inheritable permissions from this object's parent Click the "Remove" button to remove the only current entry "Type: Allow, Name: Administrators (XYZ\Administrators), Permission: Full control, Inherited From: OK on the "Permissions" tab. OK on the "Security" tab. Now this same procedure does not work at the folder level. It results in "access denied" dialogs. I'm looking for some way to perform this exact modification on all the images I edited on the other computer. I'm happy to use the Windows GUI in Explorer or any other included tools. I'm happy to use the Windows command line. I'd prefer not to use a third-party tool since I'd have to be satisfied it's not doing anything else. I'm not looking for a different way to change permissions to other settings to make an external drive full of photos editable on multiple computers. At least not in this question.

  Read the article

• Which permissions need to be assigned to a normal user to allow him to change SHARE permissions?

  - by guest

  As in the subject - I am wondering, which permissions (if it is possible) do I need to assign to a regular user to modify the share permissions - e.g. to add another user with full control permissions, or to deny someone read access to the folder - on a share level. I know that this is possible through NTFS permissions, but I am wondering whether it is also possible on share level. Any ideas how to do that? Or perhaps only the adminstrator/creator/person who shared the folder has the access to this? I am using win2003 Any ideas? Thanks

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >