Hello all, Today, I ran across a directory in /etc/ on one of our servers whose permissions where set to 600 (drw-------) with root being the owner. The directory is for the firewall package for the server, so it is not something malicious. Checking some other systems, they also have this directory and the permissions on those servers is also 600, so it isn't just a messed up permissions on this one machine. What is the difference between permissions of 600 and 700 for a directory, that is owned by root (group root)? Is there a reason why some directory should be set to 600 instead of 700? -- Doug Registered Linux User #285548 (http://counter.li.org) ---------------------------------------- Never trust a computer you can't throw out a window. -- Steve Wozniak
Ski Dawg wrote:> Hello all, > > Today, I ran across a directory in /etc/ on one of our servers whose > permissions where set to 600 (drw-------) with root being the owner. > The directory is for the firewall package for the server, so it is not > something malicious. Checking some other systems, they also have this > directory and the permissions on those servers is also 600, so it > isn't just a messed up permissions on this one machine. > > What is the difference between permissions of 600 and 700 for a > directory, that is owned by root (group root)? Is there a reason why > some directory should be set to 600 instead of 700?600 is read and write for the owner whereas 700 is read write and execute. If there is nothing in the folder that needs to be executed than 600 would be correct.
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 05:45:36PM -0600, Ski Dawg wrote:> Hello all, > > Today, I ran across a directory in /etc/ on one of our servers whose > permissions where set to 600 (drw-------) with root being the owner.Heheheheh. That machine is so broken. Even 0700 would be unbelievably broken> The directory is for the firewall package for the server, so it is not > something malicious. Checking some other systems, they also have this > directory and the permissions on those servers is also 600, so it > isn't just a messed up permissions on this one machine.Sounds like some messed up wanna-be security person who doesn't grok Unix. Basically nothing non-root running will work properly on these machines. And if everything is designed to run as root then the architect has shown other issues. "root" is the user of last recourse on a properly managed server. -- rgds Stephen