Timeline for Why does "chmod 1777" and "chmod 3777" both set the sticky bit?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 9, 2016 at 4:24 | comment | added | Kyle Jones | @Wildcard Agreed. | |
| Jan 9, 2016 at 4:22 | comment | added | Wildcard | @KyleJones, it's still dangerous. If the passwd binary were world-writable, you wouldn't be able to get root access by modifying it, as you say, but you could replace it with some other binary that everyone would run thereafter, thinking it was passwd. | |
| Sep 12, 2014 at 2:04 | vote | accept | Liao Zhuodi | ||
| Sep 12, 2014 at 2:04 | vote | accept | Liao Zhuodi | ||
| Sep 12, 2014 at 2:04 | |||||
| Feb 11, 2013 at 18:47 | comment | added | Kyle Jones | @jippie setuid and setgid bits go away if the file is modified, so you can't get root access that way. | |
| Feb 8, 2013 at 16:37 | comment | added | jippie | You are proposing a potentially risky operation.The combination sticky bit and rwx permisions for all is bad practice. Anybody can change and execute the file and the s-bit allow switching to root user without pasword. | |
| Feb 8, 2013 at 15:49 | history | edited | George M | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 7 characters in body; edited title |
| Feb 8, 2013 at 13:54 | answer | added | JZeolla | timeline score: 42 | |
| Feb 8, 2013 at 7:09 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackUnix/status/299776859913199616 | ||
| Feb 8, 2013 at 3:38 | answer | added | Kyle Jones | timeline score: 17 | |
| S Feb 8, 2013 at 3:38 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| Feb 8, 2013 at 4:57 | |||||
| S Feb 8, 2013 at 3:38 | review | First posts | |||
| Feb 8, 2013 at 3:39 | |||||
| Feb 8, 2013 at 3:23 | history | asked | Liao Zhuodi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |