Subject: Re: home dir: anonymous-yes, user-no (?)

From: "D. Carlos Knowlton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 14:10:16 -0600

>On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, D. Carlos Knowlton wrote:
>
>> username:13CharHashPwd:1008:100::/home/user:/bin/bash
>>
>> the '/usr/home/'
>
>Which is it?

oops, sorry
forgive my inconsitency,

it's '/home/username'  (and 'home' is a symlink of '/usr/home' ('usr' being
the mount directory for '/dev/hda3', a seperate partition))

>and does /./ appear in the passwd entry?

no

>Also, any symlinks or NFS involved in these areas?

No NFS, I'm the only user with access to the Linux portion of this system,
everyone else is http, ftp, rip, or smb (individual permissions from these
don't allow write access from anyone but the owner, unless otherwise
specified for the particular application being used to access the server.).
The symlinks are mentioned above.

>Finally, your symlink stuff on /etc/passwd is lame; all it's good for is
>ensuring your successor will curse on your grave.  The world-writable
>directory owned by all users is just asking for trouble; I don't think
>it's needed for Samba and WU-FTPD to co-exist (I certainly never needed it
>when I allowed smb connections on my production servers).

okay, that's fine, but does it interfere with WU-FTPD functioning properly?
(BTW I appreciate the criticism, but I'm pretty much stuck with the
configuration that I have unless there are some serious obstacles caused by
it when I upgrade to new software. (which is why I'm asking these dumb
questions =)   )

-ck

---

From: Gregory A Lundberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 15:23:43 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, D. Carlos Knowlton wrote:

> it's '/home/username' (and 'home' is a symlink of '/usr/home' ('usr'
> being the mount directory for '/dev/hda3', a seperate partition))

try it without naming the symlink in /etc/passwd.

> I'm the only user with access to the Linux portion of this system

good.  except that the users are 'real' and should be 'guest' otherwise
you might was well be giving them telnet access for all the damage they
can do.

> that's fine, but does it interfere with WU-FTPD functioning properly?

the symlinks might.  the permissions shouldn't (sendmail will pitch a fit
about 'em, though).

the vr versions pass everything through realpath(), so a symlink to an
unreachable area will cause problems

> configuration that I have unless there are some serious obstacles
> caused by it when I upgrade to new software. (which is why I'm asking
> these dumb questions =)  )

I understand about legacy messes .. it's a love/hate relationship .. lotsa
billable hours I'd rather fill more productively ..

Upgrades _or_ new software will give headaches.  The install/upgrade
scripts will expect things to be where the usually are.  That means
hand-holding the install/upgrade.  Oh, joy!  More wasted billable hours.

-- 

Gregory A Lundberg              Senior Partner, VRnet Company
1441 Elmdale Drive              [email-masked]
Kettering, OH 45409-1615 USA    1-800-809-2195