LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General
User Name
Password
Linux - General This Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 02-15-2005, 09:28 AM   #1
busbarn
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Location: Denver, CO US
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 453

Rep: Reputation: 30
Why are mp3s and oggs executable?


This last weekend I was trying to edit some tag info on ogg files that were given to me by my brother. I soon realized that oggs and mp3s ripped in windows are read only, and they are executable. So if I want to edit the tags, I have to change the permissions to user writable. This poses two questions in my mind:

1. Should audio files be executable or this a securtiy risk? I know that as long as these executables don't have root access, it's okay, but it still seems odd to me to have an audio file need to be executable. Any ideas?

2. Do mp3 players require the mp3s and oggs to be executable? I have a neuros and iaudio u2. The neuros plays anything whether it's executable or not, but the u2 won't play an ogg or mp3 unless it's executable.

If anyone could shed some light on this, that would be great.
 
Old 02-15-2005, 09:42 AM   #2
crabboy
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,821

Rep: Reputation: 121Reputation: 121
1. No they should not be executable. It would only be a security risk if the .mp3 file was actually a binary program or script and not just binary data as an mp3, ogg file should be.

2. No, just readable by the user that is trying to access.
 
Old 02-15-2005, 10:13 AM   #3
busbarn
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Location: Denver, CO US
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 453

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
Hmmm. Interesting. Thanks for the reply crabboy. Is there a reason why windows apps would enable executable permissions? I've aslo found that sometimes k3b (my default ripper to ogg) creates executable permissions. I guess in the big scheme of things, it's no big deal, but it does seem to be a mystery to me!
 
Old 02-15-2005, 10:45 AM   #4
perfect_circle
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Athens, Greece
Distribution: Slackware, arch
Posts: 1,783

Rep: Reputation: 53
This could have something to do with the umask entry of the partition in fstab if all your files are executable. I'm using umask=000 for my windows partitions so every file is actually rwx.
Also if you have a umask=0222 then you'll have r+x permission but not write.
 
Old 02-15-2005, 01:40 PM   #5
busbarn
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Location: Denver, CO US
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 453

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
I'm not using umask or windows, but I have a few friends who use only windows (I know I know I'm working on it). Anyways, I don't think you can change the permissions on a windows file can you? It just seems silly to me. Anyways, thanks for you replies.
 
Old 02-15-2005, 01:53 PM   #6
IsaacKuo
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
Distribution: Debian Stable
Posts: 2,546
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 465Reputation: 465Reputation: 465Reputation: 465Reputation: 465
The reason the permissions looks funny probably has to do with how you "transfered" the files to Linux. Windows and windows file systems don't have the same sort of permissions bits as Linux and Unix do. Consequently, Windows SMB networking doesn't communicate the sort of file permissions bits that Linux does--so whatever SMB client you're using has to fill in the blanks with defaults.

One way to fill in those blanks is to default to making every file executable, since there's no way to really tell whether or not they're supposed to be executable.

Windows apps don't set or unset the "executable" permissions bit, because no such "executable bit" even exists in Windows. Whatever Windows program you used to encode the file has no control or influence over whether or not the "executable" permissions bit gets set later on when Linux sees the file.
 
Old 02-15-2005, 07:10 PM   #7
busbarn
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Location: Denver, CO US
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 453

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
Good info--I never thought of that. Thanks Isaac.
 
Old 02-15-2005, 09:04 PM   #8
frieza
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Location: harvard, il
Distribution: Ubuntu 11.4,DD-WRT micro plus ssh,lfs-6.6,Fedora 15,Fedora 16
Posts: 3,233

Rep: Reputation: 406Reputation: 406Reputation: 406Reputation: 406Reputation: 406
yes... on a side note, the same thing happens with legacy mac formatted volumes, it's an FS issue
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Running a Java executable class from another executable class LUB997 Programming 22 07-24-2005 04:57 AM
Making an MP3 Player play OGGs Winno General 2 07-17-2004 04:29 PM
Eroaster & Oggs frkstein Linux - Software 2 05-02-2003 02:45 PM
Where to download oggs gonus Linux - Software 10 09-29-2002 09:39 PM
rippers, mp3s and mp3s.... (?) bxb32001 Linux - General 0 07-14-2001 12:53 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:23 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration