Is it logical that file system acls would be corrupted in a way that adds permission for another user?

Posted by wilbbe01 on Server Fault See other posts from Server Fault or by wilbbe01
Published on 2011-02-04T14:47:09Z Indexed on 2011/02/04 15:27 UTC
Read the original article Hit count: 181

Filed under:
|
|

I was having issues on a shared hosting provider with the host's web server instance not serving some files. I asked the companies support about the issue and they responded with the results of getfacl on my home directory, and added the necessary line to allow their web server to obtain the necessary permissions.

All is working happily now, but I noticed a line in the getfacl that was for what appeared to be another username to which I had no relation. I asked them about this and their response was that it was likely some minor corruption and that I could remove the unwanted line with the setfacl -x option.

I know I never added the user to my home directory, and I also find it weird that that could truly happen due to corruption. So now that it is fixed I'm a little bit weary of whether or not they were trying to cover up a problem they accidentally gave someone permissions to my account, or if this kind of thing can really be corrupted in that way. Especially when that user is a real user on the same server.

Any thoughts? Thanks.

© Server Fault or respective owner

Related posts about linux-server

Related posts about acl