- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - HP-UX
- >
- Re: Why do symlinks have 777 permission ?
Operating System - HP-UX
1820195
Members
3956
Online
109620
Solutions
Forums
Categories
Company
Local Language
back
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
back
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Blogs
Information
Community
Resources
Community Language
Language
Forums
Blogs
Topic Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
09-21-2009 10:56 PM
09-21-2009 10:56 PM
Why do symlinks have 777 permission ?
Hi folks
Just trying to figure out why symbolic links have a 777 permission by default. I know there bits are inconsequential because it is the file it is pointing to that is seen for read/write/execute access. But still it could have been that the symlinks had the same value as the file all the time, or they had some other value, like a read (444). Why 777 ?
Is it to do with the fact that the symlinks can belong to different file systems as the file they point to, or because they have a seperate inode number to that of the file ?
Urgent help required.
Thanks
Just trying to figure out why symbolic links have a 777 permission by default. I know there bits are inconsequential because it is the file it is pointing to that is seen for read/write/execute access. But still it could have been that the symlinks had the same value as the file all the time, or they had some other value, like a read (444). Why 777 ?
Is it to do with the fact that the symlinks can belong to different file systems as the file they point to, or because they have a seperate inode number to that of the file ?
Urgent help required.
Thanks
1 REPLY 1
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
09-21-2009 11:14 PM
09-21-2009 11:14 PM
Re: Why do symlinks have 777 permission ?
Hi,
See the below link or read this
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-general-1/why-chmod-cannot-change-symbolic-link-permission-102012/
Permissions on symlinks would simply make no sense at all, only the permissions of the file that they point to is relevant, and that's what linux changes when you chmod a symbolic link.
There's no point and no logic behind modifying the permissions of a symlink from a conceptual point of view (even if that was possible, which it is not). If accessing to a file was as easy as creating a symlink to it and then changing the permissions of the symlink the linux would be the most insecure os around the world.
It would be like drawing a door in a wall with a pencil and pretending to open it when you don't have the key to the front door
Suraj
See the below link or read this
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-general-1/why-chmod-cannot-change-symbolic-link-permission-102012/
Permissions on symlinks would simply make no sense at all, only the permissions of the file that they point to is relevant, and that's what linux changes when you chmod a symbolic link.
There's no point and no logic behind modifying the permissions of a symlink from a conceptual point of view (even if that was possible, which it is not). If accessing to a file was as easy as creating a symlink to it and then changing the permissions of the symlink the linux would be the most insecure os around the world.
It would be like drawing a door in a wall with a pencil and pretending to open it when you don't have the key to the front door
Suraj
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Hewlett Packard Enterprise. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation.
Company
Learn About
News and Events
Support
© Copyright 2025 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP