Ever came across a case where cmod 777 was a valid solution

[Giles Orr]

On 9 March 2012 14:14, Lennart Sorensen <lsorense-1wCw9BSqJbv44Nm34jS7GywD8/FfD2ys at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 12:43:40PM -0500, William Muriithi wrote:
>> Afternoon,
>>
>> Over time, I have came across cases where someone has "fixed" a
>> problem or suggested changing file permission to 777 and have always
>> ended up ranting about it.  That got me thinking today, could there be
>> a solution that would genuinely need read, write and execute
>> permission for user, group and others?  I sincerely can not think of
>> any and wonder if any of us here have come across such a case.
>>
>> Please educate me.
>
> Possibly for something like /dev/null
>
> And as someone else said, if the sticky bit is set as well, then OK.
> Otherwise it is always solving the problem in the wrong way.

Many years ago a more experienced sysadmin referred to 666 file
permissions as "permissions of the beast."  It stuck with me and acted
as a vivid reminder that if I thought about solving something that way
I was doing it wrong.

-- 
Giles
http://www.gilesorr.com/
gilesorr-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists