Change ownership of directory owned by root
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
As a non-privileged user, owning a directory on an EXT4 filesystem where I have all the necessary rights (rwx) gives me the possibility to change content and ownership of files (e.g. vim file and :w!) within it even if they are owned by root and even if I don't have the right to change them (root:root and 0644).
Is that somehow possible with a directory owned by root if that directory is within a directory owned by my non-privileged user?
files permissions directory ownership
edited Jan 6 at 11:32
Gilles
506k11910021529
asked Jan 5 at 18:59
chevallier
8521116
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
As a non-privileged user, owning a directory on an EXT4 filesystem where I have all the necessary rights (rwx) gives me the possibility to change content and ownership of files (e.g. vim file and :w!) within it even if they are owned by root and even if I don't have the right to change them (root:root and 0644).
Is that somehow possible with a directory owned by root if that directory is within a directory owned by my non-privileged user?
files permissions directory ownership
edited Jan 6 at 11:32
Gilles
506k11910021529
asked Jan 5 at 18:59
chevallier
8521116
What type of filesystem is it?   Please do not respond in comments; edit your question to make it clearer and more complete.
– G-Man
Jan 5 at 23:58
By the way, guys, the “problem that can’t be reproduced†close reason is for problems that the OP can’t reproduce.  It is not meant to be used in the case where you, another member of the community, are unable to reproduce the OP’s problem.
– G-Man
Jan 5 at 23:58
@G-Man yes sure, I edited my question and added the FS-Type.
– chevallier
Jan 6 at 10:59
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
As a non-privileged user, owning a directory on an EXT4 filesystem where I have all the necessary rights (rwx) gives me the possibility to change content and ownership of files (e.g. vim file and :w!) within it even if they are owned by root and even if I don't have the right to change them (root:root and 0644).
Is that somehow possible with a directory owned by root if that directory is within a directory owned by my non-privileged user?
files permissions directory ownership
edited Jan 6 at 11:32
Gilles
506k11910021529
asked Jan 5 at 18:59
chevallier
8521116
As a non-privileged user, owning a directory on an EXT4 filesystem where I have all the necessary rights (rwx) gives me the possibility to change content and ownership of files (e.g. vim file and :w!) within it even if they are owned by root and even if I don't have the right to change them (root:root and 0644).
Is that somehow possible with a directory owned by root if that directory is within a directory owned by my non-privileged user?
files permissions directory ownership
edited Jan 6 at 11:32
Gilles
506k11910021529
asked Jan 5 at 18:59
chevallier
8521116
edited Jan 6 at 11:32
Gilles
506k11910021529
edited Jan 6 at 11:32
Gilles
506k11910021529
edited Jan 6 at 11:32
Gilles
506k11910021529
506k11910021529
asked Jan 5 at 18:59
chevallier
8521116
asked Jan 5 at 18:59
chevallier
8521116
asked Jan 5 at 18:59
chevallier
8521116
8521116
What type of filesystem is it?   Please do not respond in comments; edit your question to make it clearer and more complete.
– G-Man
Jan 5 at 23:58
By the way, guys, the “problem that can’t be reproduced†close reason is for problems that the OP can’t reproduce.  It is not meant to be used in the case where you, another member of the community, are unable to reproduce the OP’s problem.
– G-Man
Jan 5 at 23:58
@G-Man yes sure, I edited my question and added the FS-Type.
– chevallier
Jan 6 at 10:59
add a comment |Â
What type of filesystem is it?   Please do not respond in comments; edit your question to make it clearer and more complete.
– G-Man
Jan 5 at 23:58
By the way, guys, the “problem that can’t be reproduced†close reason is for problems that the OP can’t reproduce.  It is not meant to be used in the case where you, another member of the community, are unable to reproduce the OP’s problem.
– G-Man
Jan 5 at 23:58
@G-Man yes sure, I edited my question and added the FS-Type.
– chevallier
Jan 6 at 10:59
What type of filesystem is it?   Please do not respond in comments; edit your question to make it clearer and more complete.
– G-Man
Jan 5 at 23:58
What type of filesystem is it?   Please do not respond in comments; edit your question to make it clearer and more complete.
– G-Man
Jan 5 at 23:58
By the way, guys, the “problem that can’t be reproduced†close reason is for problems that the OP can’t reproduce.  It is not meant to be used in the case where you, another member of the community, are unable to reproduce the OP’s problem.
– G-Man
Jan 5 at 23:58
By the way, guys, the “problem that can’t be reproduced†close reason is for problems that the OP can’t reproduce.  It is not meant to be used in the case where you, another member of the community, are unable to reproduce the OP’s problem.
– G-Man
Jan 5 at 23:58
@G-Man yes sure, I edited my question and added the FS-Type.
– chevallier
Jan 6 at 10:59
@G-Man yes sure, I edited my question and added the FS-Type.
– chevallier
Jan 6 at 10:59
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
The owner of a directory can change the contents of the directory however they want. Even if there's a file in the directory that the directory owner isn't allowed to write, the directory owner can remove that file and create a new file by the same name.
More generally, if you have write permission to a directory, then you can remove and create files in that directory. Thus you can change files in that directory, not by writing to them if you don't have write permission on the file, but by deleting the existing file and creating a new file by the same name.
If you own a directory parent and it contains a subdirectory child that is owned by root and you don't have write permission on child, then you can't modify files in child. However, you can rename child and create a new subdirectory called child, which will be owned by you and thus can contain whatever you want.
This is why security checks that verify file control (e.g. the sanity checks that OpenSSH makes on private key files) verify the whole directory chain up to the root. Likewise, if you give a user sudo rights to run a file, the whole path to the file should be controlled by root. For example, don't give a user sudo rights to run a program that's under their home directory. (On the other hand, a setuid root program anywhere is fine, because setuid is attached to the file itself, not to its path.) Anyone who controls any intermediate step in the directory path can substitute their own content, not by editing the actual file, but by renaming a directory at the point in the path.
answered Jan 6 at 11:32
Gilles
506k11910021529
I gave sudo-rights to a shell-script in/home/$USER/rootdir/(whererootdiris owned byroot:rootwith0775) - so regarding your answer, even that is not secure, because$USERcould rename the orginalrootdir, create a new directory with the same namerootdirand replace the script with it’s own version, which will pertain the same sudo-rights, correct?
– chevallier
Jan 6 at 11:45
2
@chevallier You mean you gave a bob the right to runsudo /home/bob/rootdir/myscript? Indeed, that's insecure, because bob can domv /home/bob/rootdir /home/bob/not.rootdir; mkdir /home/bob/not_rootdir; ln -s /bin/sh /home/bob/rootdir/myscriptand thensudo /home/bob/rootdir/myscriptwill run sh as root.
– Gilles
Jan 6 at 11:58
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
I am unable to replicate your stated premise.
Directory owned by me containing a file owned by root:
$ ls -ld mydir mydir/file2
drwxrwxr-x 2 user1 user1 4096 Jan 5 13:52 mydir
-rw-rw-r-- 1 root root 0 Jan 5 13:52 mydir/file2
Attempt to claim ownership of root's file in mydir:
$ chown user1 mydir/file2
chown: changing ownership of 'mydir/file2': Operation not permitted
answered Jan 5 at 20:56
DopeGhoti
40.5k54979
Editing the file should also not be permitted. Deleting it however is perfectly permissible.
– Doug O'Neal
Jan 5 at 21:13
It is indeed possible, tryvim fileand then force the write with:w!.
– chevallier
Jan 6 at 10:53
You can't change ownership of the existing file, but you can remove the file and create a new file by the same name and with the same content, owned by you.
– Gilles
Jan 6 at 11:26
Neither of which are the stated scenario in the original question, since deleting and replacing a file and altering a file (or its properties) are different propositions.
– DopeGhoti
Jan 8 at 15:56
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
The owner of a directory can change the contents of the directory however they want. Even if there's a file in the directory that the directory owner isn't allowed to write, the directory owner can remove that file and create a new file by the same name.
More generally, if you have write permission to a directory, then you can remove and create files in that directory. Thus you can change files in that directory, not by writing to them if you don't have write permission on the file, but by deleting the existing file and creating a new file by the same name.
If you own a directory parent and it contains a subdirectory child that is owned by root and you don't have write permission on child, then you can't modify files in child. However, you can rename child and create a new subdirectory called child, which will be owned by you and thus can contain whatever you want.
This is why security checks that verify file control (e.g. the sanity checks that OpenSSH makes on private key files) verify the whole directory chain up to the root. Likewise, if you give a user sudo rights to run a file, the whole path to the file should be controlled by root. For example, don't give a user sudo rights to run a program that's under their home directory. (On the other hand, a setuid root program anywhere is fine, because setuid is attached to the file itself, not to its path.) Anyone who controls any intermediate step in the directory path can substitute their own content, not by editing the actual file, but by renaming a directory at the point in the path.
answered Jan 6 at 11:32
Gilles
506k11910021529
I gave sudo-rights to a shell-script in/home/$USER/rootdir/(whererootdiris owned byroot:rootwith0775) - so regarding your answer, even that is not secure, because$USERcould rename the orginalrootdir, create a new directory with the same namerootdirand replace the script with it’s own version, which will pertain the same sudo-rights, correct?
– chevallier
Jan 6 at 11:45
2
@chevallier You mean you gave a bob the right to runsudo /home/bob/rootdir/myscript? Indeed, that's insecure, because bob can domv /home/bob/rootdir /home/bob/not.rootdir; mkdir /home/bob/not_rootdir; ln -s /bin/sh /home/bob/rootdir/myscriptand thensudo /home/bob/rootdir/myscriptwill run sh as root.
– Gilles
Jan 6 at 11:58
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
The owner of a directory can change the contents of the directory however they want. Even if there's a file in the directory that the directory owner isn't allowed to write, the directory owner can remove that file and create a new file by the same name.
More generally, if you have write permission to a directory, then you can remove and create files in that directory. Thus you can change files in that directory, not by writing to them if you don't have write permission on the file, but by deleting the existing file and creating a new file by the same name.
If you own a directory parent and it contains a subdirectory child that is owned by root and you don't have write permission on child, then you can't modify files in child. However, you can rename child and create a new subdirectory called child, which will be owned by you and thus can contain whatever you want.
This is why security checks that verify file control (e.g. the sanity checks that OpenSSH makes on private key files) verify the whole directory chain up to the root. Likewise, if you give a user sudo rights to run a file, the whole path to the file should be controlled by root. For example, don't give a user sudo rights to run a program that's under their home directory. (On the other hand, a setuid root program anywhere is fine, because setuid is attached to the file itself, not to its path.) Anyone who controls any intermediate step in the directory path can substitute their own content, not by editing the actual file, but by renaming a directory at the point in the path.
answered Jan 6 at 11:32
Gilles
506k11910021529
I gave sudo-rights to a shell-script in/home/$USER/rootdir/(whererootdiris owned byroot:rootwith0775) - so regarding your answer, even that is not secure, because$USERcould rename the orginalrootdir, create a new directory with the same namerootdirand replace the script with it’s own version, which will pertain the same sudo-rights, correct?
– chevallier
Jan 6 at 11:45
2
@chevallier You mean you gave a bob the right to runsudo /home/bob/rootdir/myscript? Indeed, that's insecure, because bob can domv /home/bob/rootdir /home/bob/not.rootdir; mkdir /home/bob/not_rootdir; ln -s /bin/sh /home/bob/rootdir/myscriptand thensudo /home/bob/rootdir/myscriptwill run sh as root.
– Gilles
Jan 6 at 11:58
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
The owner of a directory can change the contents of the directory however they want. Even if there's a file in the directory that the directory owner isn't allowed to write, the directory owner can remove that file and create a new file by the same name.
More generally, if you have write permission to a directory, then you can remove and create files in that directory. Thus you can change files in that directory, not by writing to them if you don't have write permission on the file, but by deleting the existing file and creating a new file by the same name.
If you own a directory parent and it contains a subdirectory child that is owned by root and you don't have write permission on child, then you can't modify files in child. However, you can rename child and create a new subdirectory called child, which will be owned by you and thus can contain whatever you want.
This is why security checks that verify file control (e.g. the sanity checks that OpenSSH makes on private key files) verify the whole directory chain up to the root. Likewise, if you give a user sudo rights to run a file, the whole path to the file should be controlled by root. For example, don't give a user sudo rights to run a program that's under their home directory. (On the other hand, a setuid root program anywhere is fine, because setuid is attached to the file itself, not to its path.) Anyone who controls any intermediate step in the directory path can substitute their own content, not by editing the actual file, but by renaming a directory at the point in the path.
answered Jan 6 at 11:32
Gilles
506k11910021529
The owner of a directory can change the contents of the directory however they want. Even if there's a file in the directory that the directory owner isn't allowed to write, the directory owner can remove that file and create a new file by the same name.
More generally, if you have write permission to a directory, then you can remove and create files in that directory. Thus you can change files in that directory, not by writing to them if you don't have write permission on the file, but by deleting the existing file and creating a new file by the same name.
If you own a directory parent and it contains a subdirectory child that is owned by root and you don't have write permission on child, then you can't modify files in child. However, you can rename child and create a new subdirectory called child, which will be owned by you and thus can contain whatever you want.
This is why security checks that verify file control (e.g. the sanity checks that OpenSSH makes on private key files) verify the whole directory chain up to the root. Likewise, if you give a user sudo rights to run a file, the whole path to the file should be controlled by root. For example, don't give a user sudo rights to run a program that's under their home directory. (On the other hand, a setuid root program anywhere is fine, because setuid is attached to the file itself, not to its path.) Anyone who controls any intermediate step in the directory path can substitute their own content, not by editing the actual file, but by renaming a directory at the point in the path.
answered Jan 6 at 11:32
Gilles
506k11910021529
edited Jan 6 at 11:59
answered Jan 6 at 11:32
Gilles
506k11910021529
answered Jan 6 at 11:32
Gilles
506k11910021529
answered Jan 6 at 11:32
Gilles
506k11910021529
506k11910021529
I gave sudo-rights to a shell-script in/home/$USER/rootdir/(whererootdiris owned byroot:rootwith0775) - so regarding your answer, even that is not secure, because$USERcould rename the orginalrootdir, create a new directory with the same namerootdirand replace the script with it’s own version, which will pertain the same sudo-rights, correct?
– chevallier
Jan 6 at 11:45
2
@chevallier You mean you gave a bob the right to runsudo /home/bob/rootdir/myscript? Indeed, that's insecure, because bob can domv /home/bob/rootdir /home/bob/not.rootdir; mkdir /home/bob/not_rootdir; ln -s /bin/sh /home/bob/rootdir/myscriptand thensudo /home/bob/rootdir/myscriptwill run sh as root.
– Gilles
Jan 6 at 11:58
add a comment |Â
I gave sudo-rights to a shell-script in/home/$USER/rootdir/(whererootdiris owned byroot:rootwith0775) - so regarding your answer, even that is not secure, because$USERcould rename the orginalrootdir, create a new directory with the same namerootdirand replace the script with it’s own version, which will pertain the same sudo-rights, correct?
– chevallier
Jan 6 at 11:45
2
@chevallier You mean you gave a bob the right to runsudo /home/bob/rootdir/myscript? Indeed, that's insecure, because bob can domv /home/bob/rootdir /home/bob/not.rootdir; mkdir /home/bob/not_rootdir; ln -s /bin/sh /home/bob/rootdir/myscriptand thensudo /home/bob/rootdir/myscriptwill run sh as root.
– Gilles
Jan 6 at 11:58
I gave sudo-rights to a shell-script in
/home/$USER/rootdir/ (where rootdir is owned by root:root with 0775) - so regarding your answer, even that is not secure, because $USER could rename the orginal rootdir, create a new directory with the same name rootdir and replace the script with it’s own version, which will pertain the same sudo-rights, correct?– chevallier
Jan 6 at 11:45
I gave sudo-rights to a shell-script in
/home/$USER/rootdir/ (where rootdir is owned by root:root with 0775) - so regarding your answer, even that is not secure, because $USER could rename the orginal rootdir, create a new directory with the same name rootdir and replace the script with it’s own version, which will pertain the same sudo-rights, correct?– chevallier
Jan 6 at 11:45
2
2
@chevallier You mean you gave a bob the right to run
sudo /home/bob/rootdir/myscript? Indeed, that's insecure, because bob can do mv /home/bob/rootdir /home/bob/not.rootdir; mkdir /home/bob/not_rootdir; ln -s /bin/sh /home/bob/rootdir/myscript and then sudo /home/bob/rootdir/myscript will run sh as root.– Gilles
Jan 6 at 11:58
@chevallier You mean you gave a bob the right to run
sudo /home/bob/rootdir/myscript? Indeed, that's insecure, because bob can do mv /home/bob/rootdir /home/bob/not.rootdir; mkdir /home/bob/not_rootdir; ln -s /bin/sh /home/bob/rootdir/myscript and then sudo /home/bob/rootdir/myscript will run sh as root.– Gilles
Jan 6 at 11:58
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
I am unable to replicate your stated premise.
Directory owned by me containing a file owned by root:
$ ls -ld mydir mydir/file2
drwxrwxr-x 2 user1 user1 4096 Jan 5 13:52 mydir
-rw-rw-r-- 1 root root 0 Jan 5 13:52 mydir/file2
Attempt to claim ownership of root's file in mydir:
$ chown user1 mydir/file2
chown: changing ownership of 'mydir/file2': Operation not permitted
answered Jan 5 at 20:56
DopeGhoti
40.5k54979
Editing the file should also not be permitted. Deleting it however is perfectly permissible.
– Doug O'Neal
Jan 5 at 21:13
It is indeed possible, tryvim fileand then force the write with:w!.
– chevallier
Jan 6 at 10:53
You can't change ownership of the existing file, but you can remove the file and create a new file by the same name and with the same content, owned by you.
– Gilles
Jan 6 at 11:26
Neither of which are the stated scenario in the original question, since deleting and replacing a file and altering a file (or its properties) are different propositions.
– DopeGhoti
Jan 8 at 15:56
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
I am unable to replicate your stated premise.
Directory owned by me containing a file owned by root:
$ ls -ld mydir mydir/file2
drwxrwxr-x 2 user1 user1 4096 Jan 5 13:52 mydir
-rw-rw-r-- 1 root root 0 Jan 5 13:52 mydir/file2
Attempt to claim ownership of root's file in mydir:
$ chown user1 mydir/file2
chown: changing ownership of 'mydir/file2': Operation not permitted
answered Jan 5 at 20:56
DopeGhoti
40.5k54979
Editing the file should also not be permitted. Deleting it however is perfectly permissible.
– Doug O'Neal
Jan 5 at 21:13
It is indeed possible, tryvim fileand then force the write with:w!.
– chevallier
Jan 6 at 10:53
You can't change ownership of the existing file, but you can remove the file and create a new file by the same name and with the same content, owned by you.
– Gilles
Jan 6 at 11:26
Neither of which are the stated scenario in the original question, since deleting and replacing a file and altering a file (or its properties) are different propositions.
– DopeGhoti
Jan 8 at 15:56
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
I am unable to replicate your stated premise.
Directory owned by me containing a file owned by root:
$ ls -ld mydir mydir/file2
drwxrwxr-x 2 user1 user1 4096 Jan 5 13:52 mydir
-rw-rw-r-- 1 root root 0 Jan 5 13:52 mydir/file2
Attempt to claim ownership of root's file in mydir:
$ chown user1 mydir/file2
chown: changing ownership of 'mydir/file2': Operation not permitted
answered Jan 5 at 20:56
DopeGhoti
40.5k54979
I am unable to replicate your stated premise.
Directory owned by me containing a file owned by root:
$ ls -ld mydir mydir/file2
drwxrwxr-x 2 user1 user1 4096 Jan 5 13:52 mydir
-rw-rw-r-- 1 root root 0 Jan 5 13:52 mydir/file2
Attempt to claim ownership of root's file in mydir:
$ chown user1 mydir/file2
chown: changing ownership of 'mydir/file2': Operation not permitted
answered Jan 5 at 20:56
DopeGhoti
40.5k54979
answered Jan 5 at 20:56
DopeGhoti
40.5k54979
answered Jan 5 at 20:56
DopeGhoti
40.5k54979
answered Jan 5 at 20:56
DopeGhoti
40.5k54979
40.5k54979
Editing the file should also not be permitted. Deleting it however is perfectly permissible.
– Doug O'Neal
Jan 5 at 21:13
It is indeed possible, tryvim fileand then force the write with:w!.
– chevallier
Jan 6 at 10:53
You can't change ownership of the existing file, but you can remove the file and create a new file by the same name and with the same content, owned by you.
– Gilles
Jan 6 at 11:26
Neither of which are the stated scenario in the original question, since deleting and replacing a file and altering a file (or its properties) are different propositions.
– DopeGhoti
Jan 8 at 15:56
add a comment |Â
Editing the file should also not be permitted. Deleting it however is perfectly permissible.
– Doug O'Neal
Jan 5 at 21:13
It is indeed possible, tryvim fileand then force the write with:w!.
– chevallier
Jan 6 at 10:53
You can't change ownership of the existing file, but you can remove the file and create a new file by the same name and with the same content, owned by you.
– Gilles
Jan 6 at 11:26
Neither of which are the stated scenario in the original question, since deleting and replacing a file and altering a file (or its properties) are different propositions.
– DopeGhoti
Jan 8 at 15:56
Editing the file should also not be permitted. Deleting it however is perfectly permissible.
– Doug O'Neal
Jan 5 at 21:13
Editing the file should also not be permitted. Deleting it however is perfectly permissible.
– Doug O'Neal
Jan 5 at 21:13
It is indeed possible, try
vim file and then force the write with :w!.– chevallier
Jan 6 at 10:53
It is indeed possible, try
vim file and then force the write with :w!.– chevallier
Jan 6 at 10:53
You can't change ownership of the existing file, but you can remove the file and create a new file by the same name and with the same content, owned by you.
– Gilles
Jan 6 at 11:26
You can't change ownership of the existing file, but you can remove the file and create a new file by the same name and with the same content, owned by you.
– Gilles
Jan 6 at 11:26
Neither of which are the stated scenario in the original question, since deleting and replacing a file and altering a file (or its properties) are different propositions.
– DopeGhoti
Jan 8 at 15:56
Neither of which are the stated scenario in the original question, since deleting and replacing a file and altering a file (or its properties) are different propositions.
– DopeGhoti
Jan 8 at 15:56
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f415055%2fchange-ownership-of-directory-owned-by-root%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
What type of filesystem is it?   Please do not respond in comments; edit your question to make it clearer and more complete.
– G-Man
Jan 5 at 23:58
By the way, guys, the “problem that can’t be reproduced†close reason is for problems that the OP can’t reproduce.  It is not meant to be used in the case where you, another member of the community, are unable to reproduce the OP’s problem.
– G-Man
Jan 5 at 23:58
@G-Man yes sure, I edited my question and added the FS-Type.
– chevallier
Jan 6 at 10:59