On Saturday 22 March 2003 12:51 pm, Frank Bax wrote: > At 12:49 AM 3/22/03, David E. Fox wrote: > > > That - of course - triggered my filthy phantasy. I tried to=20 > > > become root and change the permissions by issuing the=20 > > > command : chmod 777 * . > > > >That's because FAT32 doesn't implement permissions the same way - so a > >chmod wouldn't have any effect, and the permissions only reflect how > >the device was originally mounted. > > > >FAT32 in and of itself doesn't have permissions - at least they aren't > >built into the filesystem in the same way that Linux and other Unix > >systems do (at the inode level). Nevertheless, it is possible - even > >with Windows 95 to set up private and public spaces (aka drives). I've > >seen it done when I used to work at the local Census office here. We > >had a network of some 20-odd PCs all running Windows 95 - and a big > >server running NT. Of course, all this smoke and mirrors we had set > >up probably was courtesy of NT and Novell and not 95 specifically. But > >we were able to login at any workstation and attach our "private" > >drive or store files in a "public" area. I wasn't involved in IT there > >so I don't really know how it was done -- but I"m sure it would have > >been easier to do it in Unix :). > > > > > Kaj Haulrich. > > NT doesn't use FAT32 - it uses NTFS - which does support security at node > level. yes, but this person does not have windows at all, they have a fat partition as a means of saving and sharing public files. thanks for the info tho. BTW (NT can use fat, it is a choice you make at partition/install time)
-- Linux counter number 167806
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
