On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:44:29AM -0600, Dan Armbrust wrote: > > Plus whatever protections the file permissions provide. If a directory is > > 755 but a file in it is 600, that's better protection than if the file is > > 644. If they made the file 644 in a directory that is 755, that would be > > especially reckless, so I was wondering about that. If they made the file > > 600, that would suggest that they see the problem, but they think the file > > permission is enough to deal with it. > > > > Mike > > > > dana at strongbad:~ =>ls -al .kde/share/apps/okular/docdata/ > total 4 > drwx------ 2 dana dana 88 2010-02-15 11:43 . > drwx------ 3 dana dana 104 2010-02-15 11:43 .. > -rw-r--r-- 1 dana dana 363 2010-02-15 11:43 31460.sample.pdf.xml > > > Sigh. But the directory permissions above the file are 700. > > The fact that the file even exists without the app informing me about > it is what irks me. They wanted to be "user-friendly" and not scare or annoy you with the warning dialog. And in all fairness, most users will just click-through it with reckless abandon. Oh well, florin -- Bruce Schneier expects the Spanish Inquisition. http://geekz.co.uk/schneierfacts/fact/163 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20100215/18ce728a/attachment.pgp