Help?!


Recommended Posts

what command would you use to make sure that you cannot easily delete a file called backup (which you own) without affecting other permissions?

This is a question in a lab I'm doing. I've racked my brain, I've racked Google's brain. I've tried a TON of other things, and I can't seem to figure it out... can anyone help?

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1056948-help/
Share on other sites

have a look at chattr command

e.g : chattr +i filename.

with this command the permissions does not change and nor you can edit or delete the file unless >>>> chattr -i filename

Good command, but chattr +u backup is probably better (makes the file only undeleteable).

http://linux.about.com/od/commands/l/blcmdl1_chattr.htm

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1056948-help/#findComment-594643080
Share on other sites

Upon closer inspection of the man page for chattr, +u would appear to be wrong:

When a file with the `u' attribute set is deleted, its contents are saved. This allows the user to ask for its undeletion.

But +i should work:

A file with the `i' attribute cannot be modified: it cannot be deleted or renamed, no link can be created to this file and no data can be written to the file. Only the superuser or a process pessessing the CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE capability can set or clear this attribute.
Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1056948-help/#findComment-594643230
Share on other sites

rm /bin/rm :D

But then again if you don't want to screw the system, chattr +i is the way to go.

AFAIK you must execute it as root, though, and root still can delete the file. It just prevents plain users from modifying it in any way.

You could also make the file undeletable for every user including root using SELinux, or replace rm with the safe-rm wrapper and add your backup file to the blacklist.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1056948-help/#findComment-594643438
Share on other sites

Correct answer is

Chmod u-w backup

That removes write permissions, but that doesn't prevent you from deleting the file, even in a regular, non-root account.


[nick@fedora16vm ~]$ touch file.txt
[nick@fedora16vm ~]$ ll file.txt
-rw-rw-r-- 1 nick nick 0 Feb 10 13:06 file.txt
[nick@fedora16vm ~]$ chmod u-w file.txt
[nick@fedora16vm ~]$ ll file.txt
-r--rw-r-- 1 nick nick 0 Feb 10 13:06 file.txt
[nick@fedora16vm ~]$ rm file.txt
rm: remove write-protected regular empty file `file.txt'? y
[nick@fedora16vm ~]$ ll file.txt
ls: cannot access file.txt: No such file or directory
[/CODE]

Edit:

/threadhijack: I'm unfamilar with the chattr, but highly interested... but I can't get it work. Any ideas? (Fedora 16)

[CODE]
[nick@fedora16vm ~]$ chattr +i file.txt
chattr: Operation not permitted while setting flags
[/CODE]

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1056948-help/#findComment-594646092
Share on other sites

That was the answer the Professor gave me, and the program he wrote to check answers said it was correct... thus I have to accept it's wrong, even if it isn't. :s

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1056948-help/#findComment-594646242
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • It is silly there is no simple way to check whether this profile has been activated. CFRs are normal, but trying to even hide the fact if it's on / off seems silly, especially for something so user-facing. Surely Microsoft is "proud" of their engineering efforts on this one and ought to display it somwhere in the GUI.
    • Many Linux distros are not known for excellent battery life, so I'm not sure that is the best example. A more apt example may be Apple, but Apple's CPUs are simply far more efficient than Intel & AMD at single-threaded tasks like these, so "boosting" is not as power-hungry and less heat-inducing. Not to mention Apple will hardly engage P-cores for basic UI tasks; they use a pretty complicated QoS scheme to only activate P-cores for more serious workloads like HTML / JS execution or decompression or application launch. Microsoft is (smartly) doing it for launch, but also for UI tasks, which is the more nonsensical part: why ... do Windows 11's UIs need modern CPUs to boost? It should load so quickly that there's not even time for the CPU to boost.
    • I've not seen any controlled testing and, judging by Microsoft's mentality, within a year, they'll have added so much more bloat, it'll undo any perceptible latency benefit and we'll have boosted the CPU clocks for nothing.
    • It depends: heat soak is a thing. Initially on cold boot-up, the heatsinks & heatpipes are at ambient temp. After heatsinks & heatpipes warm up (through normal usage), they don't immediately cool to ambient temp when the load goes away. So their baseline is higher and the trigger point for fans is much less stress. Add a few more CPU spikes → it's too hot to stay at the same fan RPM → fans get triggered to start up up much sooner / get triggered to ramp much more quickly.
    • Can LibreOffice just shut up and worry about themselves and stop comparing themselves? Do we see Microsoft complaining about euro office?
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      slackerzz earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Year In
      highriskpaym earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      highriskpaym earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      highriskpaym earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      FBSPL earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      501
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      198
    3. 3
      +Edouard
      157
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      84
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      73
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!