Question for UX gurus

[high_revs]

hopefully i can pick the brain of some of our UX gurus here, particularly hp ux flavor.

got a situation where i requested massive permissions change for every file under a directory to be drwxr- - r - - at the directory level or -rwxr- - r - - at the file level. but over time, they seem to be changing and giving write and/or execute access to group and/or other.

w/o having to do a massive change regularly, i'd like to get to the root of the problem. a team that performs move to production use power broker into a ux app account to move files over.

any possible root cause to avoid having to do a massive change, which someone (like) have to remember each and every mtp? i believe files are just copied over from a staging server, not modified directly in production if that matters.

[ocabj]

The files in question: Who is the owner? The owner's umask is probably incorrectly defined.

[ocabj]

Oh, is there any reason why you want group owner and world to be able to list the directory, but not make it the working directory?

You indicated you wanted 744 for the dir and 744 for the files within.

As far as setting a umask to allow rwx for a user owner, you'd have to set the base perms for that user from 666 to 777. That's a bit unconventional.

[winnre]

Rats I thought I had a fellow collector here!

[high_revs]

thanks OCABJ. it's just that developers aren't part of application groups (or shouldn't be). sometimes, they need read-only access to all directories. there are many, many directories. the only working directories anyone should have that is not a ux admin should be their home directory. anything outside is mandated to be read-only.

i think unmask was one i came across and bookmarked for further reading. appreciate the tips and direction.

this effort is all in the name of "IT compliance under the guise of SOX"

i'll have to research quite a bit of paperwork to list out all the application accounts to setup correct unmask for.