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. |

| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: NTFS default special permissions, Megan Kielman |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: NTFS default special permissions, Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: NTFS default special permissions, Megan Kielman |
| Next by Thread: | Re: NTFS default special permissions, Megan Kielman |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |