I've been asked to set up a blog program for a client on his Linux-based
server, which I've done, and pretty much everything works OK. However,
two things have issues : the image gallery and movie upload.

When a file is uploaded via the blog admin, and it arrives on the
server, it has permissions set at 600, and the owner are group are both
"10003", whatever that is. As a result, it throws up a "403 forbidden"
error when the page is loaded, and the gallery doesn't work. This is
despite the fact that the upload folder has its permissions set at 777.

When I upload via FTP, the situation is slightly different : permissions
seem to be set at 644, and there is no owner and group at all (??).

Where are the automatic permissions settings? Is it a server config
issue, or does it come from the blog? I'd like the files to respect the
enclosing folder permissions, i.e. set their permissions automatically
to 777. How best to ensure this?

Cheers! TIA!
--
ric at pixelligence dot com

ric zito wrote:

Ric, Linux Server is a closed book to me. Have you tried posting this
on one of the Linux forums? What flavour of Linux is it?

--
Paul-B Formula 1 - cheat-free version here now.

Paul-B <paul (AT) rasf1 (DOT) net> wrote:

Here's what the blog's "server info" throws up :

Votre version de PHP est 4.3.10-19
Votre version de MySQL est 4.0.24_Debian-10sarge2
Votre serveur Web est Apache/2.0.54 (Debian GNU/Linux) mod_ssl/2.0.54
OpenSSL/0.9.7e

I think it's a generic Unix-like problem, no? Don't Unix and Linux use
the same permission system?
--
ric at pixelligence dot com

ric zito wrote:
I don't think you want to give the whole world write permissions! I
think the problem must be with the blog program - is there a manual
somewhere? 644 seems sensible (owner can read and write, group can read,
world can read, iirc). I've had loads of issues with file permissions
and it remains something of a dark art to me - recommend you ask on a
linux newsgroup.

--
Phil

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmc1979/

"Phil Newnham" <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in message
755 - user has read (1), write (2) and execute (4), everyone else has read
(1) execute (4).

This is the standard for our web anyway...

E

ric zito wrote:

Owner 10003 just means the original file was owned by a user with that id
and the transfer program didn't alter it. You don't have a user (group) on
your machine with that id so it just displays the number.

WAG here, but it sounds like the software expects to run with root
privileges, either by starting it as root or making the executable setuid.

Without knowing what mechanism is used to to do the uploads it's hard to
know just where the answer may lie.

?? is right, there is always an owner and group. Sometimes they're just
numbers though.

The automatic permissions are controlled by umask. Try setting umask 0022 in
the environment before you start the uploading software. This will create
directories with 755 and files with 644.

BTW, setting execute permissions (777) on _files_ that are not programs is
considered bad form. It won't actually hurt anything (it can be a bit of a
security risk) but it demonstrates the administrator doesn't really
understand what's going on.

Hope this helps,
--
Frank....H

On 2007-05-02, Frank....H <askme (AT) for (DOT) it> wrote:
Giving non-executable files execute permission may be seen as bad form,
but it's nothing compared to having world writable files and directories!

--
David Taylor

David Taylor <davidt-news (AT) yadt (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Well, thanks to all who replied. The server admin has indeed changed the
umask to 0022, and all folders/files are now created with 0755/0644
permissions. Problem solved!

Cheers!
--
ric at pixelligence dot com