Search Results

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

Page 42/191 | < Previous Page | 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49  | Next Page >

• Windows 2008 R2 file share - any way to "lock it down" outside of a 3rd party app?

  - by TheCleaner

  I have a 3rd party app that "makes a call" to write files to a file share on our network using the currently logged in credentials of the Windows domain user. Meaning the 3rd party app doesn't pass the apps credentials but simply issues a behind the scenes copy command to take a source file specified and copy/move it to the destination "repository" on the file share. The basic premise is that it keeps revisions/approvals for Document Control (think svn/git I guess, similar to this question: Lock down Windows folder to only be updatable by SVN). This all works fine...but here's my issue: I need a way to lock down the file share from being accessed/modified outside of using the 3rd party app (meaning prevent explorer/word/excel/etc from getting to that share). I know I can do the following: make the share a hidden share ($) - this definitely helps. Most users would have zero clue on how to get to such a share. Solves probably 95% of my issue. go one step further and set the "Hidden" attribute on the folders in the hidden share - this would go a little further in that even if a user knows the path to the hidden share like \\server\hidden$ they still won't see folders in that share without changing their explorer options to "show hidden files/folder Any other ideas on how I can lock this down? The users still need modify rights to this share/folders since the 3rd party app relies on their Windows permissions to that location when copying the files into it. I can't really use 3rd party tools to password protect the folder/share without causing the 3rd party app functions to fail.

  Read the article

• SQL Server Unattended Install through SSH

  - by Samuel

  I'm trying to install SQL Server from the command line through Cygwin open-ssh. The install works when I log onto the server as Administrator and execute the script through a Cygwin shell, but the install doesn't work when I SSH into the machine using Administrator's credentials and run the exact same command. I've already verified that the SSHD process is running as the Admistrator, and I've verified that the install script is indeed starting under Administrator. Is there something different with the terminal in SSH vs. the Cygwin terminal on the machine that would cause this problem? Specifically what's failing is Sql Server install runs for a while then hangs with a MSI error 1622. "Error opening installation log file. Verify that the specified log file location exists and is writable." If I run both installs, I've noticed that they have different authentication id's in ProcMon, but they have the exact same command line parameters. There has to be something in SSH that is causing permissions issues... Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Why doesn't SSHFS let me look into a mounted directory?

  - by Jan

  I use SSHFS to mount a directory on a remote server. There is a user xxx on client and server. UID and GID are identical on both boxes. I use sshfs -o kernel_cache -o auto_cache -o reconnect -o compression=no \ -o cache_timeout=600 -o ServerAliveInterval=15 \ [email protected]:/mnt/content /home/xxx/path_to/content to mount the directory on the remote server. When I log in as xxx on the client I have no problems. I can cd into /home/xxx/path_to/content. But when I log in on the client as another user zzz and then $ ls -l /home/xxx/path_to I get this d????????? ? ? ? ? ? content and on $ ls -l /home/xxx/path_to/content I get ls: cannot access content: Permission denied When I do $ ls -l /mnt on the remote server I get drwxr-xr-x 6 xxx xxx 4096 2011-07-25 12:51 content What am I doing wrong? The permissions seem to be correct to me. Am I wrong?

  Read the article

• How can I access user files on a disk moved from a Windows 7 machine to an XP machine?

  - by Fantius

  I moved the hard drive from one machine (Win 7) to another (XP) and now certain folders tell me "Access denied". I am logged in as an administrator. I had a different account on the other machine. Neither account authenticated to anything besides the local machine. The old machine is apparently dead, so I can't do anything in there like change permissions, etc. How can I access these files? Edit: After changing the ownerships of all the files and folders on the drive, I am getting a different error. And it is troubling me deeply. "xxx refers to a location that is unavailable. It could be on a hard drive on this computer, or on a network. Check to make sure that the disk is properly inserted, or that you are connected to the Internet or your network, and then try again. If it still cannot be located, the information might have been moved to a different location." No change after rebooting. Any ideas? Surely the files are still there, right?

  Read the article

• Copying files to my laptop makes them locked

  - by John

  When I save files from e.g. remote desktop or from an email (outlook) attachments, or from skype even to my local machine they show a locked Icon on the file. Then e.g. SQL Server doesn't let me restore backups as it says the operating system doesn't have access to the file. I've had success fixing this by setting the ownership of the parent folder to my user and then let it apply to sub folders. Also sometimes I need to click - Proerties - Security - Advanced - Change Permmissions, then check "change child permissions..." and apply on the parent dir. I'm using Windows 7 64 bit Proffessional, on HP Probook 4530, and I have a administrator user. This is a real pain to do everytime. I suspect it might be because of HP software that came with the laptop, I think there is drive encryption as part of the protect tools. Although I'm hoping there's something in windows i can set to change the behaviour to not lock these files.

  Read the article

• How can I get write permission for the Web (Inetpub) directory on a new Win 7 machine?

  - by marcipollo

  I mirror my Web site on my laptop, and am trying to move the mirror site to a new laptop. I copied the files to the Inetpub directory, and can view them perfectly, but they are read-only (the check-mark is grey, not black), and I cannot change the permission. When I un-check the read-only attribute on the Inetpub directory, and click "apply" it displays a dialog box stating that I need administrative permission to change the attributes. (I am logged in as an administrator). When I click "continue," it pops up another dialog box saying access is denied to the attributes of the file: c:\inetpub\custerr\en-us\500-100.asp That dialog box has an "ignore" button, and if I click that, it appears to work through the directory tree setting the permissions. It leaves all of the files (leafs) set to "read-write," but the directories remain "read only." I am using 64-bit Windows 7. I stopped the IIS service while doing all of this. Might it have something to do with the fact that I copied the files from a different machine in the workgroup (my old laptop)?

  Read the article

• How do I configure IIS to allow access to network resources for PHP scripts?

  - by Dereleased

  I am currently working on a PHP front-end that joins together a series of applications running on separate servers; many of these applications generate files that I need access to, but these files (for various reasons) reside on their parent servers. If I, from the command line, issue a bit of script such as: <?php var_dump(glob("\\\\machine-name\\some\\share\\*")); I will get the full contents of that directory, proving that there's no problem programmatically with PHP reading the contents of a UNC share. However, if I try to execute the same script from the web server, I get an empty array -- more specifically, if I use more explicitly functions designed to "open" a directory like it was a file, I get access errors. I believe this to be a permissions issue, but I am not a server/network administrator type, so I'm not sure what I need to do to correct this and get my script running, and the links I've checked out have not been a terrible amount of help, perhaps due to my background, or lack thereof as far as IIS is concerned, coupled with the fact that we are not actually using .NET for this. Relevant Stats: Windows Server 2008 Standard SP2 IIS 7.0 PHP 5.2.9 I will be connecting to two types of servers: a few other nearly-identical Server 2008 machines, and a machine running embedded XP. Links that have not been particularly helpful but maybe I am just misreading: http://support.microsoft.com/?id=306158 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/207671/EN-US/ http://support.microsoft.com/kb/280383/

  Read the article

• Exchange Full Access issue

  - by Benjamin Jones

  I was just hired as a System Admin for a small company. They use Exchange 2010 for their Mail Server. I've never had a permission issue like this with Exchange because I worked for a larger firm with less responsibility before. Their old system admin is LONG GONE, so I can't ask him what he did. The issue: Right now ANYONE can gain access to a mailbox and view the mail in the mailbox. This is disabled by default you say and you have to grant them full access ? You are right, but the old System Admin I guess didn't know what he was doing. SO right now user A can open up user B mailbox with out being granted permission. So here is what I found out. Every user in EMC Full Access Permission has Exchange Server group granted. Within the Exchange Server Group, Domain User's is a Member Of. Within Domain User's all user's are listed as Members. So my guess is because of this all users can access ANY mailbox? Well GOOD News. The company is small (35 people) and they are not computer savvy, so hopefully no one has figured out they can open anyone's mailbox.(From what I can tell no). Next thing I did was with my domain user in EMC, delete Exchange Servers Group in FUll Access Permissions and grant access to my user. I made sure that my memeber was apart of the Exchange Server Group. Went to our OWA site and now I don't have permission to my own mailbox. Re did everything to the way it was with my user and now I'm stuck. Any help? I would think granting a single user that is in the Exchange Server group, Full Access to that mailbox would enable them to open that mailbox???? I guess I am wrong.

  Read the article

• Reading log files from web application

  - by Egorinsk

  Hi! I want to write a small PHP application for monitoring logs on a Debian server, including syslog logs and Apache/PHP messages. The problem here is that Apache user (www-data) has no access to /var/log directory. What would be the best way to grant an access to logs for PHP application? Let's assume that log files can be really large, like hundreds of megabytes. I have some ideas: Write a shell script that would be run via sudo and tail last 512 Kb of log into a separate file that can be read by application - that's ineffective, because of forking a new process and having to read data twice Add www-data to adm group (that can read logs) - that's insecure Start a PHP process via cron every minute to read logs — that's not very good, because it doesn't allow real-time monitoring. Also, this script will be started even when I don't read logs, and consume CPU time (server is in the cloud, and I'll have to pay for it) Create a hardlink for all log files with lowered permissions - I guess, that won't work because logrotate could recreate log files and they'll change inode number. Start a separate nginx/Apache server under privileged user that may read logs. Maybe anyone got a better solution?

  Read the article

• Unable to create files in a directory

  - by vamsi360

  I have created a directory in Virutalbox. Using VBoxManage, I am executing a script inside the Ubuntu VM directory I created above from Ubuntu host OS. But if the script in the VM contains commands for creating a new file, they are not executing. "echo" commands before and after the touch ommand are working fine. I even used root user for VBoxManage to install. I think the directory is not allowing the files to be created . How can I make a directory in Linux to be 777 to all new files created automatically. I mean, even if I make the directory (chmod 777 dir), I am unable to execute the script from the host. Please help. It may be simple permissions problem. Even root is unable to execute. VBoxManage guestcontrol "Ubuntu_10_04" execute --image "/bin/bash" "/home/cloudlet/Desktop/temp2/three" --username root --password root --verbose --wait-exit --wait-stdout -- -l /usr Please help. I am struggling with this problem for the past one week.

  Read the article

• How do I get Apache 2 to read this directory?

  - by Mike

  I'm on Mac OSX and i I have apache2 installed via MacPorts, running as the _www user. I have some files I want to serve in the /Users/Me/Documents/abc folder. Right now, though, the permissions of /Users/Me/Documents are 700. So, _www can't get in, even if abc is chmod 777. I recognize the following options: Allow _www access to my Documents folder. Put the files I want to share outside of my Documents folder. Hard-link the files outside of my Documents folder, and point apache to the hard links. None of these solutions are acceptable to me, however. I don't feel safe allowing _www access to my entire Documents folder. I really want to keep the files in my Documents folder for other reasons. The files are changing all the time, so hard-linking would not always reflect the right file structure, and, as I understand it, you can't hard-link a directory (though, if you could, that would solve it). Any ideas for a solution? Is there a way to run a few httpd processes as my user account so it can get in there? Or, is there some way to hard-link a directory, or some way to get httpd to follow a symlink past a directory that is 700 not owned by _www? Thanks!

  Read the article

• different user group can not upload file in the server

  - by Dallal

  I have a CentOS server running in Thailand, and I'm in Canada. The guy at the computer center who set up the server for me doesn't really understand much about linux and left me off an issue to solve myself. I just moved from Mac Server to Linux server, and the first thing I'm facing a problem now is `file name` has failed to upload due to an error The uploaded file could not be moved to `location name` So what happen is that I knew from my experiences of these problem is all about permissions. So I go ahead and checked on my whole folder and found that everything in the folder permission is like myusername mygroupname then I checked the httpd file in the server and it is default to apache apache. My question is that how can I make my user to be in the same group with apache group so that I don't have to have any problem about uploading, changing data in my file....? But without having to affect other user in the same server. I'm holding Administrator account, but not root account, but I can change stuff on the server root no problem. When I was with godaddy.com there never been any problem about the permission and I wish I know how they configure that :(

  Read the article

• File upload folder permission fastCGI - How to make it writeable?

  - by user6595

  I am using centos 5.7 with cPanel WHM running fastcgi/suEXEC I am trying to make a particular folder writable to allow a script to upload files but seem to be having problems. The folder (and all recursive folders) I want to be writable is: /home/mydomain/public_html/uploads And I want only scripts run by the user "songbanc" to be able to write to this directory. I have tried the following: chown -R songbanc /home/mydomain/public_html/uploads chmod -R 755 /home/mydomain/public_html/uploads But it still doesn't seem to work. The script will only upload files if I set the permissions manually via FTP client to 777. I assume I am misunderstanding how to set permission for users with fastcgi and hopefully someone can help me. Thanks in advance EDIT: Running getfacl on one of the scripts or folders gives the following: # file: home/mydomain/public_html/ripples/1.jpg # owner: songbanc # group: songbanc So it appears that the owner is correct? I'm now totally confused! EDIT 2: The plot thickens... lsattr and chattr are returning Inappropriate ioctl for device While reading flags on...

  Read the article

• NTFS Issues in Windows 7 and 2008 R2 - 'Is it a Bug?'

  - by renewieldraaijer

  I have been using the various versions of the Microsoft Windows product line since NT4 and I really thought I knew the ins and outs about the NTFS filesystem by now. There were always a few rules of thumb to understand what happens if you move data around. These rules were: "If you copy data, the copied data will inherit the permissions of the location it is being copied to. The same goes for moving data between disk partitions. Only when you move data within the same partition, the permissions are kept."  Recently I was asked to assist in troubleshooting some NTFS related issues. This forced me to have another good look at this theory. To my surprise I found out that this theory does not completely stand anymore. Apparently some things have changed since the release of Windows Vista / Windows 2008. Since the release of these Operating Systems, a move within the same disk partition results in the data inheriting the permissions of the location it is being copied into. A major change in the NTFS filesystem you would think!  Not quite! The above only counts when the move operation is being performed by using Windows Explorer. A move by using the 'move' command from within a cmd prompt for example, retains the NTFS permissions, just like before in Windows XP and older systems. Conclusion: The Windows Explorer is responsible for changing the ACL's of the moved data. This is a remarkable change, but if you follow this theory, the resulting ACL after a move operation is still predictable.  We could say that since Windows Vista and Windows 2008, a new rule set applies: "If you copy data, the copied data will inherit the permissions of the location it is being copied to. Same goes for moving data between disk partitions and within disk partitions. Only when you move data within the same partition by using something else than the Windows Explorer, the permissions are kept." The above behavior should be unchanged in Windows 7 / Windows 2008 R2, compared to Windows Vista / 2008. But somehow the NTFS permissions are not so predictable in Windows 7 and Windows 2008 R2. Moving data within the same disk partition the one time results in the permissions being kept and the next time results in inherited permissions from the destination location. I will try to demonstrate this in a few examples: Example 1 (Incorrect behavior): Consider two folders, 'Folder A' and 'Folder B' with the following permissions configured.                    Now we create the test file 'test file 1.txt' in 'Folder A' and afterwards move this file to 'Folder B' using Windows Explorer.                       According to the new theory, the file should inherit the permissions of 'Folder B' and therefore 'Group B' should appear in the ACL of 'test file 1.txt'. In the screenshot below the resulting permissions are displayed. The permissions from the originating location are kept, while the permissions of 'Folder B' should be inherited.                   Example 2 (Correct behavior): Again, consider the same two folders. This time we make a small modification to the ACL of 'Folder A'. We add 'Group C' to the ACL and again we create a file in 'Folder A' which we name 'test file 2.txt'.                    Next, we move 'test file 2.txt' to 'Folder B'.                       Again, we check the permissions of 'test file 2.txt' at the target location. We can now see that the permissions are inherited. This is what should be happening, and can be considered 'correct behavior' for Windows Vista / 2008 / 7 / 2008 R2. It remains uncertain why this behavior is so inconsistent. At this time, this is under investigation with Microsoft Support. The investigation has been going for the last two weeks and it is beginning to look like there is no rational reason for this, other than a bug in the Windows Explorer in Windows 7 and 2008 R2. As soon as there is any certainty on this, I will note it here in this blog.                   The examples above are harmless tests, by using my own laptop. If you would create the same set of folders and groups, and configure exactly the same permissions, you will see exactly the same behavior. Be sure to use Windows 7 or Windows 2008 R2.   Initially the problem arose at a customer site where move operations on data on the fileserver by users would result in unpredictable results. This resulted in the wrong set of people having àccess permissions on data that they should not have permissions to. Off course this is something we want to prevent at all costs.   I have also done several tests with move operations by using the move command in a cmd prompt. This way the behavior is always consistent. The inconsistent behavior is only exposed when using the Windows Explorer to initiate the move operation, and only when using Windows 7 or Windows 2008 R2 systems. It is evident that this behavior changes when the ACL of a folder has been changed, for example by adding an extra entry. The reason for this remains uncertain though. To be continued…. A dutch version of this post can be found at: http://blogs.platani.nl/?p=612

  Read the article

• Preventing Windows version of Vim from destroying other file systems permissions

  - by dborba

  I am currently using the windows version of gVim to edit source files on a networked drive mapped to a linux system, as well as local files created in cygwin. The problem is that the windows version of gVim destroys the original file permissions on the respective systems. IE: Files on cygwin are defaulted to 077. When edited by the windows version of vim they are saved as 777.This problem doesn't even occur when using ms-notepad (as well as all other editors I've tried), so I am not quite sure why gVim does it. A possible solution would be to use cygwin's gVim for everything, but that's rather cumbersome as it requires running an x11 environment to support it, and it causes some problems when running some commands from within gVim (or vim for that matter) when working on the networked drive. Any ideas how I might be able to maintain the existing file permissions? Edit: This morning while on a different machine the problem with cygwin did not occur. Cygwin & gVim were the same version, however the other machine is running WinXP while the machine the problem is occurring on runs Win7.

  Read the article

• Windows Server (SBS) 2008 - Telephony service won't start (missing permissions)

  - by Uri

  I am running a SBS 2008 server. It's setup as the domain controller for the network. After a reboot, the Telephony service (and all services that depend on it) refuses to start under the Network Service account. The error given is: Error 1297: A privilege that the service requires to function properly does not exist in the service account configuration. You may use the Services Microsoft Management Console (MMC) snap-in (services.msc) and the Local Security Settings MMC snap-in (secpol.msc) to view the service configuration and the account configuration. This has caused all the network services not to be accessible e.g. terminal services, VPN (RRAS), SQL Server instances. The SSH daemon I have running on the box will accept connections only from localhost, but won't respond on the network. After searching around, the only advice I could find was to grant the Network Service account these permissions: Adjust memory quotas for a process Replace a process level token I set those permissions on both the Default Domain Policy and the Default Domain Controller Policy, but it seemingly had no effect. Most of the services will start if I change them to run under the Local System account, but that didn't make them accessible on the network. I even tried removing the Routing and Remote Access Services feature, rebooting and reinstalling it, but the issue remains. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• How to setup Calendar permissions for group to group

  - by Sorean

  I've been scouring the internet and so far have only been able to find examples of how to grant calendar permissions from one user to another using the Add-MailboxFolderPermission command. This is great and it was okay for when they only had a handful of users. But going forward it's not realistic to have to set individual calendar permissions for all calendars for each new user. Layout of security groups already created. Each group has a few people assigned to it. Techs Managers Admin What I am trying to accomplish is set it up so that anyone that belongs to the Managers group can view the calendars of the Tech group. Admins can view and edit the Tech group. I've found an example of adding just the security group name but I get an error of: [PS] C:\Windows\system32add-MailboxFolderPermission -Identity Techs:\Calendar -User "Admin" -AccessRights Owner The user "Admin" is either not valid SMTP address, or there is no matching information. + CategoryInfo : NotSpecified: (0:Int32) [Add-MailboxFolderPermission], InvalidExternalUserIdException + FullyQualifiedErrorId : 39352699,Microsoft.Exchange.Management.StoreTasks.AddMailboxFolderPermission Am I creating groups wrong? Am I using the wrong commands? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

  Read the article

• Squid - Active Directory - permissions based on Nodes rather than Groups

  - by Genboy

  Hi, I have squid running on a gateway machine & I am trying to integrate it with Active Directory for authentication & also for giving different browsing permissions for different users. 1) /usr/lib/squid/ldap_auth -b OU=my,DC=company,DC=com -h ldapserver -f sAMAccountName=%s -D "CN=myadmin,OU=Unrestricted Users,OU=my,DC=company,DC=com" -w mypwd 2) /usr/lib/squid/squid_ldap_group -b "OU=my,DC=company,DC=com" -f "(&(sAMAccountName=%u)(memberOf=cn=%g,cn=users,dc=company,dc=com))" -h ldapserver -D "CN=myadmin,OU=Unrestricted Users,OU=my,DC=company,DC=com" -w zxcv Using the first command above, I am able to authenticate users. Using the second command above, I am able to figure out if a user belongs to a particular active directory group. So I should be able to set ACL's based on groups. However, my customer's AD setup is such that he has users arranged in different Nodes. For eg. He has users setup in the following way cn=usr1,ou=Lev1,ou=Users,ou=my,ou=company,ou=com cn=usr2,ou=Lev2,ou=Users,ou=my,ou=company,ou=com cn=usr3,ou=Lev3,ou=Users,ou=my,ou=company,ou=com etc. So, he wants that I have different permissions based on whether a user belongs to Lev1 or Lev2 or Lev3 nodes. Note that these aren't groups, but nodes. Is there a way to do this with squid? My squid is running on a debian machine.

  Read the article

• Passwordless SSH not working - keys copied and permissions set

  - by Comcar

  I know this question has been asked, but I'm certain I've done what all the other answers suggest. Machine A: used keygen -t rsa to create id_rsa.pub in ~/.ssh/ copied Machine A's id_rsa.pub to Machine B user's home directory Made the file permissions of id_rsa.pub 600 Machine B added Machine A's pub key to authorised_keys and authorised_keys2: cat ~/id_rsa.pub ~/.ssh/authorised_keys2 made the file permissions of id_rsa.pub 600 I've also ensured both the .ssh directories have the permission 700 on both machine A and B. If I try to login to machine B from machine A, I get asked for the password, not the ssh pass phrase. I've got the root users on both machines to talk to each other using password-less ssh, but I can't get a normal user to do it. Do the user names have to be the same on both sides? Or is there some setting else where I've missed. Machine A is a Ubuntu 10.04 virtual machine running inside VirtualBox on a Windows 7 PC, Machine B is a dedicated Ubuntu 9.10 server UPDATE : I've run ssh with the option -vvv, which provides many many lines of output, but this is the last few commands: debug3: check_host_in_hostfile: filename /home/pete/.ssh/known_hosts debug3: check_host_in_hostfile: match line 1 debug1: Host '192.168.1.19' is known and matches the RSA host key. debug1: Found key in /home/pete/.ssh/known_hosts:1 debug2: bits set: 504/1024 debug1: ssh_rsa_verify: signature correct debug2: kex_derive_keys debug2: set_newkeys: mode 1 debug1: SSH2_MSG_NEWKEYS sent debug1: expecting SSH2_MSG_NEWKEYS debug3: Wrote 16 bytes for a total of 1015 debug2: set_newkeys: mode 0 debug1: SSH2_MSG_NEWKEYS received debug1: SSH2_MSG_SERVICE_REQUEST sent debug3: Wrote 48 bytes for a total of 1063 debug2: service_accept: ssh-userauth debug1: SSH2_MSG_SERVICE_ACCEPT received debug2: key: /home/pete/.ssh/identity ((nil)) debug2: key: /home/pete/.ssh/id_rsa (0x7ffe1baab9d0) debug2: key: /home/pete/.ssh/id_dsa ((nil)) debug3: Wrote 64 bytes for a total of 1127 debug1: Authentications that can continue: publickey,password debug3: start over, passed a different list publickey,password debug3: preferred gssapi-keyex,gssapi-with-mic,gssapi,publickey,keyboard-interactive,password debug3: authmethod_lookup publickey debug3: remaining preferred: keyboard-interactive,password debug3: authmethod_is_enabled publickey debug1: Next authentication method: publickey debug1: Trying private key: /home/pete/.ssh/identity debug3: no such identity: /home/pete/.ssh/identity debug1: Offering public key: /home/pete/.ssh/id_rsa debug3: send_pubkey_test debug2: we sent a publickey packet, wait for reply debug3: Wrote 368 bytes for a total of 1495 debug1: Authentications that can continue: publickey,password debug1: Trying private key: /home/pete/.ssh/id_dsa debug3: no such identity: /home/pete/.ssh/id_dsa debug2: we did not send a packet, disable method debug3: authmethod_lookup password debug3: remaining preferred: ,password debug3: authmethod_is_enabled password debug1: Next authentication method: password

  Read the article

• Relax Linux - it's just me! (filesystem permissions)

  - by Xeoncross

  One of my favorite things about Linux is also the most annoying - file system permissions. In production machines and web servers I love how everything is so secure and locked down - but on development machines it really slows me down. I'll give one example out of the many that I discover weekly. Like most people, I dual-boot Ubuntu and Windows so I can continue using the Adobe CS4 suite. I often design web themes and other things while I'm still using windows. Later I'll boot into Ubuntu to take the themes and write the backend PHP for them. After mounting the windows C: drive partition I can copy the template files over so I can begin editing them. However, thanks to Linux desire to protect me I find that after coping the files I end up with a totally locked set of files where even I don't have read-write permissions. So after carful consideration about the tremendous risks that the HTML files pose to me - I chmod them so that I and apache can begin using them. Now given, the chmod process isn't that hard - but after you chmod enough files per day you get sick of doing it. I'm constantly creating, fetch, editing, and removing files from my user, git repos, php, or other random processes. This is a personal development machine after all. Everything changes on a day by day basis. So my question is, how can I get linux to relax about what I'm doing with my HTML/JS/PHP/TXT/SQL/etc. files so that I can work faster without constantly stopping to chmod things? I pinky-promise I won't hack into my account with an HTML file. ;)

  Read the article

• Permissions Required for Sharepoint Backups

  - by Wyatt Barnett

  We are in the process of rolling out an extranet for some of our partners using WSS 3.0 as the platform. We already use it internally for a variety of things, and we are using the following powershell script to backup the server: param( $url="http://localhost", $backupFolder="c:\" ) [System.Reflection.Assembly]::LoadWithPartialName("Microsoft.SharePoint") $site= new-Object Microsoft.SharePoint.SPSite($url) $names=$site.WebApplication.Sites.Names foreach ($name in $names) { $n2 = "" if ($name.Length -eq 0) { $n2="ROOT" } else { $n2 = $name } $tmp=$n2.Replace("/", "_") + ".sbk" $saveas = "" if ($backupFolder.Length -eq 0) { $saveas = $tmp } else { $saveas = join-path -path $backupFolder -childPath $tmp } $site.WebApplication.Sites.Backup($name, $saveas, "true") write-host "$n2 backed up to $saveas." } This script works perfectly on the current installation running as our domain backup user. On the new box, it fails when ran as the backup user--claiming "The web application located at http://extranet/" could not be found. That url does, in fact, work so I'm fairly certain it isn't anything that dumb and rather is some permissions issue. Especially because, when executed from my security context, the script works perfectly. I have tried making the backup user a farm owner, as well as added him to the various site collection admin groups on the extranet. The one major difference between the extranet and the intranet server is that the extranet has an alternative access mapping (for https://xnet.example.com) and also uses forms authentication for that mapping. Anyhow, what permissions (or other voodoo) do I need to setup to get this script to work properly?

  Read the article

• Help me understand Ubuntu user/group permissions.

  - by Bartek

  I'm beginning to deal with more than one user on my system (it's a VPS serving some sites) and I need to make sure I understand how group permissions work. Here's my setup: I have an account named "admin" .. it's basically the primary account that is used for serving most of the sites that I control myself. Now, I added a second account named "Ville" as one of my users wants to be able to administer that site. So, I can do this the easy way and just chown their domains folder under the ville user and viola, they have permission to do whatever they need be and so forth. However, let's say I want to also give the admin user access to the files (modifying and all) .. how can I put both users into the same group and give them both permission? I've tried doing: sudo usermod -a -G admin ville To add the ville into the admin group, but ville still cannot edit files by admin. Permissions for the primary directory for the ville user are read/write for both owner and group, and the current group for the files is admin:admin .. But ville still can't write into the directory. So, what should I be doing here to get this right and secure at the same time? Thank you.

  Read the article

• 3 simple questions about file permissions

  - by Camran

  1- Wonder, is this a good setup of permissions in the /var directory? drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2010-05-30 03:34 backups drwxr-xr-x 7 root root 4096 2010-05-29 17:55 cache drwxr-xr-x 29 root root 4096 2010-05-29 17:55 lib drwxrwsr-x 2 root staff 4096 2009-07-14 04:36 local drwxrwxrwt 3 root root 60 2010-06-02 03:34 lock drwxr-xr-x 9 root root 4096 2010-06-02 03:34 log drwxrwsr-x 2 root man 4096 2009-09-20 20:36 mail drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2009-09-20 20:36 opt drwxrwxrwt 12 root root 420 2010-06-02 12:12 run drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 2009-09-20 20:37 spool drwxrwxrwt 2 root root 4096 2009-07-14 04:36 tmp drwxr-xr-x 14 user root 4096 2010-05-30 22:21 www 2- Could you give me a brief explanation of the columns above? First one is which permissions they have. Second is a nr. Third and fourth says "root root" for example. fifth is another nr (4096 for example). and the others are obvious. 3- Could you give me a brief explanation of the folders above? Especially the "lock" and "tmp" folders. Lock contains an apache2 folder which seems empty. Thanks

  Read the article

• LDAP groups not applying to filesystem permissions

  - by BeepDog

  System is ArchLinux, and I'm using nss-pam-ldapd (0.8.13-4) to connect myself to ldap. I've got my users and some groups in LDAP: [root@kain tmp]# getent group <localgroups snipped> dkowis:*:10000: mp3s:*:15000:rkowis,dkowis music:*:15002:rkowis,dkowis video:*:15003:transmission,rkowis,dkowis,sickbeard software:*:15004:rkowis,dkowis pictures:*:15005:rkowis,dkowis budget:*:15006:rkowis,dkowis rkowis:*:10001: And I have some directories that are setgid video so that the video group stays, and they're configured g=rwx so that members of the video group can write to them: [root@kain video]# ls -ld /srv/video drwxrwxr-x 8 root video 208 Oct 19 20:49 /srv/video However, members of that group, say dkowis cannot write into that directory: [root@kain video]# groups dkowis mp3s music video software pictures dkowis Total number of groups that dkowis is in is like 7, I redacted a few here. [dkowis@kain wat]$ cd /srv/video [dkowis@kain video]$ touch something touch: cannot touch 'something': Permission denied [dkowis@kain video]$ groups dkowis mp3s music video software pictures I'm at a loss as to why my groups show up in getent groups, but my filesystem permissions are not being respected. I've tried making a new directory in /tmp and setting it's group permissions to rwx, and then trying to write a file in there, it doesn't work. The only time it does work is if I open it wide up allowing o=rwx. That's obviously not what I want, and I'm not able to figure out what my missing piece is. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• SSH does not allow the use of a key with group readable permissions

  - by scjr

  I have a development git server that deploys to a live server when the live branch is pushed to. Every user has their own login and therefore the post-receive hook which does the live deployment is run under their own user. Because I don't want to have to maintain the users public keys as authorized keys on the remote live server I have made up a set of keys that 'belong's to the git system to add to remote live servers (In the post-receive hook I am using $GIT_SSH to set the private key with the -i option). My problem is that because of all the users might want to deploy to live, the git system's private key has to be at least group readable and SSH really doesn't like this. Here's a sample of the error: XXXX@XXXX /srv/git/identity % ssh -i id_rsa XXXXX@XXXXX @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ WARNING: UNPROTECTED PRIVATE KEY FILE! @ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Permissions 0640 for 'id_rsa' are too open. It is required that your private key files are NOT accessible by others. This private key will be ignored. bad permissions: ignore key: id_rsa I've looked around expecting to find something in the way of forcing ssh to just go through with the connection but I've found nothing but people blindly saying that you just shouldn't allow access to anything but a single user.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49  | Next Page >