-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I haven't seen any progress on this discussion, but I was disturbed to
see that during uploads via scp from a Linux workstation to a Solaris
server, where the permissions on the original file were 644 and the
umask for the receiving user was 022, the uploaded file was created
666. I uploaded a file to my public web directory on the server some
weeks ago, and only just now discovered that it was world-writeable.
I confirmed that scp was to blame by repeating the upload, checking
the umask and perms before the transfer.
The transfer involved ssh v.2.3.0 on both ends. This is not good.
- -d
- --
David Talkington
Community Networking Initiative
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
217-244-1962
PGP key: http://www.prairienet.org/~dtalk/dt000823.asc
Calvin Bebermeyer wrote:
>Though the permissions for 2.1.0 and 2.2.0 servers do not give the
>permissions of the original question, they do NOT use the umask settings
>for the connecting user either ... this is strange (should not be)
>behavior to me.
>
>For myself, the umask setting is 077 and I still get files uploaded that
>are not *.exe as 644 permissions. The *.exe files get 755 settings,
>which I think should not be on a UNIX box. The Win apps should not
>attempt or have executable permissions on UNIX systems, in my opinion.
>
>
>Calvin Bebermeyer
>2000-2001 MU-ACM Program Chair
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shane
>Williams
>Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 9:49 AM
>To: Wesley Most
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Default Permissions via the Windows SCP GUI
>
>
>On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Wesley Most wrote:
>
>> Good day...
>>
>> First, let me say that I think the new Windows client has been done
>quite
>> well. Also, the appearance of the free license for Universities makes
>my
>> life easier as an admin to pull the plug on telnet and ftp.
>>
>> However, there is, in my humble opinion, a glaring problem with
>version of
>> 2.2 of the Windows client. I haven't checked the older versions for
>the
>> same bug, but I believe it is there based upon the documentation for
>the
>> product. If one uploads a file that Windows deems an application the
>> permissions at rwxrwxrwx. If one uploads a document file of any type,
>the
>> file goes up rw-rw-rw-. Why would a company who's products are all
>> security-related hardcode in values like this?
>
>Hmm.. Well, it's either not in the older version (2.1.0), or it's some
>other problem. I used the sftp GUI to send a powerpoint file and it
>was saved 644. I wonder if the default permissions from the GUI are
>related to umask. Has anyone else noticed this sort of behavior,
>because if it does exist, it's definitely a problem.
>
>--
>Public key at www-swiss.ai.mit.edu | Shane Williams
>/~bal/pks-toplev.html | Systems Administrator UT-GSLIS
>=----------------------------------+-------------------------------
>All syllogisms contain three lines | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Therefore this is not a syllogism | www.gslis.utexas.edu/~shanew
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.75-6
iQEVAwUBOfelIb1ZYOtSwT+tAQF5hgf+NwqzOwQoVvVxpGxymQCNzZ6a7ipwo47q
DB6WdrN6WsWBD0i9yzo4oHJryS2kEeP2FnMzgwUbLGBWwHzUc162bp3cP/7mZv9v
xTKpHm6aDWxOlXctG3jJTw51mqG3hl6Ypz10or3/zxNDRr5RuoQK3HMvt8QAFqMk
tjoHo9g++X/mavD+DOOW4XgD8MRnTtJTGfTD/xsjSpKCoRYEscRxzvnlB22JU1GB
gdSl6B/xnjDArQeAbRl5xpy9gHeM4VZPj6LKUgEZnrHUKD9cR65y0j9bEy8NMUFt
tJhyV+zjIjjHUYA+3FRHnhBxd/K1KDrXUsmZcgshjxAEklYpi6PrRQ==
=v15f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
