Thank you for your answer,

You're right : it's impossible that a system leaves the choice to its
applications of respecting or not permissions. The problem is that QS
indexed the folder before I changed permissions, exactly as you said.

I still don't understand why QS can stay connected to that folder and
execute files even if I applied these modifications a long time ago (I
shut down the computer everyday). Don't you think this is a security
problem with Mac ? Because you never can be certain that a folder has
been read or not by another user before you change its permissions...

Thanks.



On Sep 11, 2:37 pm, Rob McBroom <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 11, 2009, at 2:07 PM, Kaïs wrote:
>
> > I have a folder with the following permissions.
> >  - me :  write only (drop box)
> >  - staff : write only (drop box)
> >  - others : access forbidden
>
> > This folder is not shared, and is locked. For example, I can't access
> > this folder or contained files using Finder
>
> > However, files inside this folder can be seen in a simple search of
> > Quicksilver... Moreover, I can read or open these files through
> > Quicksilver even if I don't have permission.
>
> > Is there a problem with access permissions in Quicksilver ?
>
> Applications can't just ignore permissions (due to a bug or any other  
> reason). That wouldn't be a very good security system at all.
>
> Quicksilver runs as a user. If that user can access something, so can  
> QS and vice-versa. Also, Quicksilver doesn't directly open most files.  
> It tells another application to open them (or tells the Finder,  
> perhaps, which then tells the application), so if you're able to open  
> the files, it's more than just QS that has access.
>
> I have to think you have access to these files somehow. Is it possible  
> Quicksilver indexed the files before you changed the access? If so,  
> you should be able to bring up QS and hit ⌘R to have it re-index  
> everything.
>
> Perhaps you could open a Terminal window and run `ls -le /path/to/
> folder` and send us the output?
>
> --
> Rob McBroom
> <http://www.skurfer.com/>

Reply via email to