Linux - NewbieThis Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Hi it depends. For symbolic link you just create a file which points to the original file. So its just like normal file. The permissions you are going to give for the original file will be on the other file which is pointing to the original file.
If you think that anything wrong can be done for ordinary(general or normal) files then this too can be done. It all depends on the permissions you give.
Distribution: Caldera, CTOS, Debian, FreeBSD, Mac OS X, Mandrake, Minix, OpenBSD, Slackware, SuSE
"The file permissions on a symbolic link are not used (they always appear as rwxrwxrwx). Instead, the permissions on the symbolic link are determined by the permissions on the target of the symbolic link (in our example, the file foo)."
The symbolic link is just a pointer to the real (target) object (file, directory, binary, script, etc.) If the permissions on the target object only allow root to access it, then ordinary users will not be able to.
Hi what do u m. ean by universal permissions? Its just rwx and thats it. Yes its security issue if you give all the rights. If you don't give execute permission for group and others, its not securit isuue.
Nobody will give better explanation than this i guess.