Re: help setting umask corrently

On 15Mar2011 16:54, Gregory Machin <gdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| found the info I needed to get it correct
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umask

"man 1 umask" should get you info also.
You may need to follow up with "man 2 umask" and/or "man 3 umask".

| 0 – read, write and execute
| 1 – read and write
| 2 – read and execute
| 3 – read only
| 4 – write and execute
| 5 – write only
| 6 – execute only
| 7 – no permissions
| so I ended up with umask 003

I use 002 myself; if I make an executable publicly readable I generally
intend execute as well.

Cheers,
--
Cameron Simpson <cs@xxxxxxxxxx> DoD#743
http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/

What's the point of having Nebraska if we can't put it to its highest and
best use? - Patrick Bedard arguing for a 100 mph speed limit
--
users mailing list
users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How to disable other users access my files on linux machine by default?
    ... This shows a umask of 002, ... This requested bitmask is then filtered through the ... This is because touch requests a bitmask of rw-rw-rw-, or 666, when it ... The only reason you don't see execute bits applied to newly created ...
    (comp.os.linux.setup)
  • Re: umask question
    ... > looked at the resulting permissions via ls -l for each value of umask. ... This is probably as a security feature: the eXecute bit is being forced to ... be off on a regular file so that you have to explicitly set it - so that ...
    (alt.linux)
  • Re: default permissions when scping files
    ... >> username take on specific permissions, or barring that, ... I read it to mean that the umask does not affect the execute bit of files ... as the source file has. ...
    (comp.unix.shell)
  • Re: umask
    ... No. umask 077 means "remove any group read, write, execute or other read, write, ... execute permissions" on created files. ... Because these files are executed by various login procedures, ...
    (comp.unix.questions)
  • Re: how to let new touched file have executable attribute without using chmod
    ... >> I found that umask cannot do it. ... > and you're saying that it takes away the execute bits? ... touching an existing file doesn't take away the ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)