DescentBB

I'm worried I gave Adobe Acrobat Reader too much power. Should I reinstall it with out admin rights? I'm also kinda new to linux, so I wouldn't be surprised if I'm misunderstanding something. All of my programs are installed with out having \"root\" access, and aren't a risk. Should I chmod +x asdklfjasldfk.bin instead then install? or -x asdfasdf.bin?

no.

No, I don't do it that way or it's not a security issue?

1. I wouldn't worry about it.
2. Why Adobe's reader?
3. You really have no idea how rights work under linux.

fliptw wrote:1. I wouldn't worry about it.
2. Why Adobe's reader?
3. You really have no idea how rights work under linux.

1. I wouldn't worry about it. 3. You really have no idea how rights work under linux.

That's why I worry. It's not clear to me why it won't install unless I perform the chmod and give it a rank of some sort. It must mean the program will continue to hold the rights given by the chmod. And with a+x it says the program is owned by "root". It seems clear that Adobe reader can get hijacked from a bad pdf and cause havoc.

2. Why Adobe's reader?

I don't really like Acrobat Reader, but it seems that the auto fill background scripts/formulas don't run in my original pdf reader. However, it appears that they also don't run in the Adobe's Linux build. But I'll have to test it further to be sure.

the only way something can run as root, is if you are logged on as root.

That makes sense. But can't some programs automatically boot with root powers? I keep finding examples of this.

░

Hi friend!

Spooky wrote:In Linux "chmod" will only have access to files and directories you own unless you open a "system window" and log in as a "su" (Super User"). Then you can change the ACL of anything you like.

So if I chmod a bin file, in the terminal, the bin's action will have admin rights, along with whatever it creates. Most of my programs say the owner is "Isaac" but adobe acrobat is owned by "root". (Which makes me think it has too much power. Flip think it's fine. But what do I know..?)

Spooky wrote:There is a command "chown" that can be used to change "ownership" of files and directories. You can access help on "chown" in a system window (Command w/Prompt window) by typing in "man chown" or "help chown". You must be logged in as a "super User" to be able to use "chown" system wide. Otherwise you are limited again to files and directories that belong to you.

I've read about that once in a linux manual on the Ubuntu site, but it appears that chmod changed ownership as well. I wouldn't be surprised if there were two commands that were similar.

Spooky wrote:I tried using the latest release of Ubuntu. When I tried to log in with "su" I was not able to do it. I thought I had missed something when I installed the system and reinstalled it more carefully to see if I did miss something. I did not see an opportunity to file a super user password. I got the same results. I never had "su" login problems like that in certain other releases of Linux. It is entirely possible that the manner of "su" user methodology has changed in some way that I have not kept up with.

Did you try sudo or gksudo? I think that's the Ubuntu way. edit: Yeah I just tried "su" and it wouldn't give me the password. I guess it's different for Debian distros?

Edit edit:

Spooky wrote: You can issue the "ps" command to view processes running "ps -au", "ps -ef". You will note there are "root" programs running . . . For further help on "ps" type in "help ps" or "man ps".

Very cool. I was trying to do that with pstree which is hard for me to use. And it always shows more data than my monitor can display, cutting off all the lines at the top.

░

Cool! Thanks for your help. I'm glad I could contribute in some way, even though it seems you know all of this stuff already. But the only real trick I know with ubuntu are the language tools that come with it.
Like Wŏ bù hĕn hăo! Or even 我不很好!
Typing these are lots of fun, for me. They're also very easy and fast to produce on a regular keyboard in Ubuntu.

Few select process can run as root, normally those loaded at boot, system services and such.

Programs will only run as root if and only if you made an effort for them to run as such - like running adobe reader from a SU prompt, or installing a program in ubuntu.

root does exist on ubuntu installs- the password is randomly generated and Ubuntu abuses sudo.

There should be fairly complete documentation for programs like chmod and su and gksudo/sudo.

read up - especially on sudo.

Unless you meant u+s (the setuid bit) you don't have to worry about it gaining
root privilege without your knowledge. (flip: don't forget that one )

The x bit just determines 'execute' permission, i.e. who can run the program.

Remember, the file 'ownership' attribute normally only specifies who controls
the file - not the processes in which it is run. The aforementioned setuid bit
changes this.

The Lion wrote:Unless you meant u+s (the setuid bit) you don't have to worry about it gaining
root privilege without your knowledge. (flip: don't forget that one )

The x bit just determines 'execute' permission, i.e. who can run the program.

Remember, the file 'ownership' attribute normally only specifies who controls
the file - not the processes in which it is run. The aforementioned setuid bit
changes this.

Maybe u = a to ubuntu, or maybe just Debian distros?

LinuxJournal wrote:$ chmod a+rwx test_file
(SNIP)
This demonstrates the fourth possible symbol for user when using symbolic mode. We used a to set full permissions for all user classes at once.(SNIP)

No, a just means everyone: user, group, and world. It's not a permission;
it tells chmod who to set permissions for. Doing chmod a+rwx is the
same as chmod ugo+rwx.

I got it now! Thanks a ton!!!!