Ethical Hacking

Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package.
Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute

Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors.




Network Security Focus-Microsoft
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: NTFS default special permissions

Subject: Re: NTFS default special permissions
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 13:26:49 +0200
On 2007-09-04 Megan Kielman wrote:
Ansgar/Geekwench -

I believe that both of you have misunderstood the original question.

You believe wrong.

The OP specifically asked what would happen if the Create
Folders/Append Data & Create Files/Write Data permission were removed
because he ONLY wants to provide Read and Execute permission to that
directory. I followed his question with another question about why
when Read and Execute, List Folder Contents, and Read are granted,
there is a "special" permission" allowing users to Create
Folders/Append Data and Create Files/Write Data.

To repeat myself: there isn't. Read permissions do NOT include (nor do
they imply) the special permissions "Create Files/Write Data" or "Create
Folders/Append Data".

You both keep mentioning that Create Folders/Append Data & Create
Files/Write data is needed so users can do their work

Which is why this set of permissions is the DEFAULT for newly created
volumes. You can change permissions from there.

but in my experiences there are many cases where users only need to
read for certain directories.

So? If that's all they need then grant them only that.

Is there some functional reason why read only on directories is not
sufficient? Is it temp files, as The OP asked earlier?

Nobody ever said read permissions were not sufficient for read-only
access. You keep misreading what's been said in this thread. All I've
been saying is that removing the special permissions MAY cause problems
(e.g. in situations where opening a file results in creation of a
temporary file in the same directory). It's up to the OP to decide if he
can live with these issues, or if they're issues for him in the first
place.

Regards
Ansgar Wiechers
-- 
"All vulnerabilities deserve a public fear period prior to patches
becoming available."
--Jason Coombs on Bugtraq

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>