Re: x bit for dirs: misfeature?

vda
2001-11-19T15:04:43Z

On Monday 19 November 2001 14:46, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, vda wrote:
> > Everytime I do 'chmod -R a+rX dir' and wonder are there
> > any executables which I don't want to become world executable,
> > I think "Whatta hell with this x bit meaning 'can browse'
> > for dirs?! Who was that clever guy who invented that? Grrrr"
> >
> > Isn't r sufficient? Can we deprecate x for dirs?
> > I.e. make it a mirror of r: you set r, you see x set,
> > you clear r, you see x cleared, set/clear x = nop?
>
> See UNIX FAQ. Ability to read != ability to lookup.
>
> Trivial example: you have a directory with a bunch of subdirectories.
> You want owners of subdirectories to see them. You don't want them
> to _know_ about other subdirectories.

Security through obscurity, that is.

Do you have even a single dir on your boxes with r!=x?
--
vda