[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Curious fileutils/coreutils behaviour.

To: Michael Wojcik <Michael.Wojcik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Curious fileutils/coreutils behaviour.
From: David Malone <dwmalone@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 19:49:07 +0100

> (*)Contrary to the FAQ entry you cited, it is sometimes useful to change the
> ownership of a symlink.  Since the owner of a symlink can be detected by a
> program, there can exist programs which depend on it.

Yes, indeed. As another example, Apache has an option to only follow
symlinks if they belong to the right person.

        David.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Curious fileutils/coreutils behaviour.
  - From: Michael Shigorin
- Re: Curious fileutils/coreutils behaviour.
  - From: Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha

References:
- RE: Curious fileutils/coreutils behaviour.
  - From: Michael Wojcik

Prev by Date: [ GLSA 200405-07 ] Exim verify=header_syntax buffer overflow
Next by Date: [ GLSA 200405-06 ] libpng denial of service vulnerability
Previous by thread: RE: Curious fileutils/coreutils behaviour.
Next by thread: Re: Curious fileutils/coreutils behaviour.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread