Security :: User Names And File Permissions On Two Different Computers?
Jul 23, 2009
Picture the following:On computer A, local user John (and John alone) has rwx access to file1.txtComputer B also has a local user account named John. If file1.txt was to be copied from computer A to computer B, would the user account John on computer B be able to access it?I guess this wouldn't work using two windows computers due to the User name / GUID relationship. Maybe linux has something similar?
I am trying to rescue some files on a Dell Laptop running XP that is in a BSOD state. I can boot up Knoppix just fine but all the files are read only but get the error: The remount command failed. Maybe there is another process accessing the filesystem currently.Also when I look at the files and folders on the Knoppix CD they look really odd. See attachment
I was wondering, what if you had a flash drive formatted with an FS that has UNIX permissions. Then what if you copied some of your files onto it. And then put it into another computer that has a user account by the same name. WIll the user be able to access the files?What if you named your own user differently on the other computer, will you be able to get your files?
I want full permissions for all computers in my house, without having to get up and go to the other room and change permissions for the file, folder, drive, directory, computer, etc., then go back to the other room again.
I just created a partition, as THIS user, THIS machine, rebooted, and cannot create a folder on the partition I just created. UGH. No more of this stuff... I guess at the very least, I'll still have to log onto each machine for this?
Im trying to compare two files and I only want to display the user names that are in the first file and not the second.
So I have one file named final.txt (which contains every user name and only the user names in a list no other information)
Then I have another file Over1.txt (which only contains certain users that have different permissions This file is also setup differently with the user name and some information about the user after the user name.
I need a way to compare final.txt to over1.txt so that I will only display the names that are in final.txt but not Over1.txt
Ive tried using diff and comm but just cant seem to get it two work correctly. Im not sure if im missing a option or what.
I want to have an account (beta user), on which:I can use the Internet and other programs without administrative rights without the right to install programs with a kind of sandbox for everything that is connected to the Internet, which means: everything that is associated with the web browser's processes and files that I save to hard disk I want to be separated from the rest of the system, so that whatever can catch up on this account will be locked in it, for example any (if at all) possible malicious scripts from Internet or whatever may be dangerous now or invented in the future. Sometimes, for example, I save the web page to disk with all it content.
And in case someone cracked into this account I want make it in that way that he could not do any tricks to read or change passwords, or make any other changes to the system. The best would be if a password for that user might serve only to log in without having any other powers, and I would give that user an automatic login. For now I created a beta user without administrative rights. I understand that the limiting rights of the user are associated with limiting rights to their home directory. There are also groups, and a user may be included or excluded. I excluded that user from admin group but I don't know what else I can limit and how. When I give chmod 0644 for /home of this user he cannot run Firefox. When I give him 0740 he can run applications, so I assume the x attribute must be preserved.
This is a user without sudo rights, so when I type sudo apt-get update a message shows up correctly that this user doesn't belong to the sudoers group. But still it's not what I wanted. When the user runs Gufw and wants to change the settings to disable the firewall, a message shows up asking to type in a password of alpha user = primary user, which is that belonging to the sudoers group, the first / main user that I created during system installation. I wish that there was only the message that the beta user has no power to change anything, which means even completely remove the possibility of asking for sudo.
In addition, I wish that this beta couldn't be able to change the permissions to its home directory, or go to see what is above. Because so far beta can change the file permissions for its /home, even without a sudo password. How can I do it? Do I need to create a kind of chroot jail for this user? I would like any changes to that user account could be made only after the user log off from beta account, and log in on alfa account and that beta could run only programs that ware installed by alpha. And that beta could read and write, but alfa could also read and write or remove, alter files on beta account. Basically, alfa account should be superior to beta account. Can do that?
look at this : Uploaded with ImageShack.us how can set permissions in linux like this? I want one user can delete files but can't modify them and ... in linux i have 3 group to assign read write and execute them. is ntfs flexible than linux file system?
i am trying to set the file permissions for the log files "/var/log/Xorg.0.log" and "/var/log/gdm/:0.log". These files seem to be created when a user logs into a whokstation (my guess so far). I am trying to comply with a security mandate that all log files in the directory /var/log are set to 0640. The two mentioned files always seem to have the permissions 0644, does anyone know where and when these filea are created and how I might set the permissions when the files are created
After upgrading my ubuntu server from 9.04 to 10.04, the window computers couldn't resolve samba shared names anymore, the error code displayed by Windows was 0x80070035.
I was using the ubuntu server as a samba server, using 'share' as the security authentication method, it has been working very well under previous ubuntu versions but, after upgrading to 10.04, the windows computers can't access the server shares anymore; the linux computers don't have any problems (I can access the shares from linux).
As a workaround, I've added the name of the server in c:windowssystem32driversetchosts; but I'd like to know how to fix the problem without modifying every windows computer.
I am setting up a new ubuntu server, and I am quite new to linux. This server will be used as code repository for a project I am going to be working on. I plan to setup 3 groups for users: dev, test, doc
- for various developers, testers and documentation users.
I would like to setup the following permissions on the main code repository directory:
dev - write permission test - execute permission doc - read permission public (anyone outside these groups) - deny all access
I am unsure what chmod setting to use, or if this is even possible in ubuntu.
I know how to assign file permissions and other tasks like user to group, but I'm stuck with a situation in how I should set up my system.So I have a LAMP server set up. I'm not the only developer so I created a group called "developers" for my other users "Mike," "Alex," and "Cindy," which are developers (I'm Mike by the way). I know that "www-data" is the user and group Apache uses.This is good because only I have permission to update the production site, but for the dev site, it's a different story.
Does anyone know why files in /boot are world-readable (particularly the initial ram disk)? I'm not an expert, but I would not expect anyone except root or a sudoer to have the ability to read these files.
I have broken my MBR and can now only enter 9.10 with the ubuntu start up cd.when i boot through he ubuntu live cd.I can see my mounted drive with all my files however i do not have the permissions to open or copy some of my files( music, films, pics) . id like to do this so i can transfer all my files to an external HDD and reformat start all over again.error when trying to open files.You do not have the permissions necessary to view the contents of.
There are some user-space based NFS clients (e.g. NFS Client library). Can I bypass file permissions by using such client? code...
Client1 uses usual NFS client (kernel-mode based) and user1@client1 can read only file1, but not file2. As I understand, client1 sends uid in nfs request, server1 do a permissions check based on the request data. So, I suggest this is possible to have a client2:
Client2 uses user-space client, and hacker@client2 knows uids of user1 and user2; If he wants to read file1 he can send uid of user1; if he wants to read file2, he sends uid of user2.
In Nautilus I select a directory on local NTFS volume. I'm logged in as root, right-click > Properties > Permissions and I set "Others" to "none". But it doesn't work. I want my friends & visitors to use and enjoy Ubuntu but without access to my NTFS volumes.
Is anyone aware of a detailed "flow chart" -- arrows and decision diamonds, etc -- that describes the file access and permissions processing? I would love to see that diagram. Years ago on a platform far away (Digitial VAX/VMS) their manuals had such a flow chart that covered not only the user-group-owner and read-write-execute permissions decision making but also include "access control list" processing at a superficial level. If someone has access to the VAX/VMS flow chart, that might be a start toward sorting what linux does.
I have a remote directory shared over NFS called tech with perms set as 0750 and owner set to root:tech. I have 2 groups: tech, and techAdmin. tech can read and execute within tech/. techAdmin can read, write, execute. I have 4 users: user1, user2, user3, user4. user1 and user2 is a member of techAdmin, user3 and user4 are members of tech. simple so far...but wait here's the problem. If user1 creates a file inside tech, user2 cant read or modify it because user1 owns it. Here's a few sites that reference this problem:
I want to simply mount an ext4 file-system onto a normal mount point in Ubuntu (/media/whereever), as read-writable for the current logged-in user, i.e. me.
I don't want to add anything into /etc/fstab, I just want to do it now, manually. I need super-user privileges to mount a device, but then only root can read-write that mount. I've tried various of the mount options, added it into fstab, but with no luck.
When viewed using Ubuntu 8.4 files and dates on a Windows partition appear normal both in file manager and terminal. However booting using Knoppix CD these files are all green, and I cannot change their permissions, even as root. ie: everything is green including text files etc. If I copy them to a linux partition, I can change their permissions and make them nonexecutable and nonwritable. Also on the Windows FAT32 partition the . directory has the date 1 Jan 1970.
If I disable any green files, I can shutdown and reboot cleanly. If I don't I start having problems shutting down [/usr/sbin/init ?] And always these follow a pattern:
Can't remember details as I have now corralled the beast but error messages relating to:
Write a short script that tells you whether the permissions for two files, whose names are given as arguments to the script, are identical. If the permissions for the two files are identical, output the common permission field. Otherwise, output each filename followed by its permission field
I can see the owner and group ids are shown because there are no corresponding entries in /etc/passwd and /etc/group respectively. I don't know much about linux and dare not to edit these files, I wonder if somebody already knows whether linux would map the owner id of files coming from other computers to the account name in /etc/passwd and display them when necessary (for example, when using ls -al)?
Suddenly I am not in the sudoers file. I am not sure how to recover from this. I have no grub screen at bootup, so I can't boot into single user. I think I am going to have to boot a live version of ubuntu to start with. Is that right? What's next after that? Also, how could this happen, I haven't touched the sudoers file or added users or anything like that (well not that I am aware of) I am a little concerned that this may be the result of someone breaking in? Would this be a likely symptom?