Linux - SecurityThis forum is for all security related questions.
Questions, tips, system compromises, firewalls, etc. are all included here.
Notices
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.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I was installing a video editing tool and got this message after the install. I changed the permissions to 700 for the file " raw1394 ". Was that the right move or should I have done something else?
/dev/raw1394 created
It is owned by root with permissions 600. You may want to fix
the group/permission to something appropriate for you.
Note however that anyone who can open raw1394 can access all
devices on all connected 1394 buses unrestricted, including
harddisks and other probably sensitive devices
What you posted doesn't look like an error message... it looks like your install created a device, made its permissions 600 by default, and is now telling you that you may change the permissions if you wish, but doing so might make your system less secure.
Changing the 600 to 700 just makes the device executable... I've never seen a device with the executable permission set, nor have I ever heard of someone needing that permission to be set for a device.
Oops, Yea I know its not an error. Yes It just runs as one user. I dont know why it would need to be executable either, I thought thats what it needed but the install broke for the program that needs this file anyway and I dont need it now.
When running ./configure I got a massage saying I needed this file so I installed it then while running ./configure again it said I needed another and I cant find it. I fear if I keep going its just gonna keep saying I need another lib file, but last night I did end up getting another program (to take its place) to work so I dont need this anymore. Thanks.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.