SecurityFocus

RE: Curious fileutils/coreutils behaviour. May 14 2004 06:19PM
Michael Wojcik (Michael Wojcik microfocus com) (1 replies)

Re: Curious fileutils/coreutils behaviour. May 14 2004 06:49PM
David Malone (dwmalone cnri dit ie) (2 replies)

Re: Curious fileutils/coreutils behaviour. May 15 2004 07:58AM
Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha (strange nsk no-ip org) (1 replies)

Re: Curious fileutils/coreutils behaviour. May 15 2004 06:52PM
Martin (broadcast mail ptraced net)

Re: Curious fileutils/coreutils behaviour. May 15 2004 06:39AM
Michael Shigorin (mike osdn org ua)

On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 07:49:07PM +0100, David Malone wrote:
> > (*)Contrary to the FAQ entry you cited, it is sometimes useful to change the
> > ownership of a symlink. Since the owner of a symlink can be detected by a
> > program, there can exist programs which depend on it.
> Yes, indeed. As another example, Apache has an option to only
> follow symlinks if they belong to the right person.

OpenWall Linux kernel patch also finds some usage for ownership
of symlinks in +t directories, just in case.

OTOH: I've recently had to fix permissions of a bunch of symlinks
(exactly due to -ow effect); apparently in ALT Linux the default
behaviour of coreutils-5.2.1 is to affect the target though at a
quick skim I can't identify the relevant patch, if any.

--
---- WBR, Michael Shigorin <mike (at) altlinux (dot) ru [email concealed]>
------ Linux.Kiev http://www.linux.kiev.ua/

[ reply ]