To setup who can access what file, Node.js's fs module provides a number of functions, such as chown.
While this works pretty well on macOS and Linux, it is rather a workaround than a solution on Windows, as Windows does not support such fine-granular permissions on the file system level. However, I know that using the properties dialog in Windows Explorer you can assign permissions to users and groups.
How can I adjust this using Node.js? Apparently, chown and co. do not perform this task, do they?
PS: Of course I can run icacls using a shell command, but I thought that there might be a better way. Is there?
Related
my application is required update its program files when it detects a new version on the server. The update mechanism is performed by the application itself, and it replaces old code with new code in the same directory. Which directory in linux is best suited for this? If there is a standard directory which has write access by default(analogous to %AppData%\Local for windows), I would like to know which one it is.
I have tried using /var/<my-app-name-here> and /opt/<my-app-name-here>, but none of these directories have write access by default. The only way I can use them update files in them is if the user uses sudo, so i would just like to avoid making those problems by just installing to a directory with write access to begin with.
I am using a tool called jpackage to make the .deb file which install the application.
What exactly is --user-data-dir specifiying?
From --help parameter:
--user-data-dir <dir> Specifies the directory that user data is kept in. Can be used to open multiple distinct instances of Code.
Is it storing some temporary files there?
Is it about the access path to config files?
I am asking as I want to run VSCode (or Codium to be more exact) with sudo (I want to edit system config file that is read restricted) which requires this parameter for reasons unclear to me.
Since sudo-ing VS Code at command-line launch is only a thing on Linux, this question assumes you're on Linux, and restricts its context to Linux.
TL;DR
To answer your question directly: the user-data-dir parameter points to a folder where all personalisation except extensions resides — unique to each user.
Why does sudo-ing Code need --user-data-dir?
In typical installations of either OS and VS Code, this folder owned by the regular user cannot be accessed by the superuser.
Hence a VS Code session running with effective UID=0 tries but fails to write to the invoking user's (not the superuser's) config folder. This is what the error message prevents from happening, by forcing the user to provide an explicit root-accessible folder.
Detailed Explanation
There are two main folders that VS Code uses to store configuration data:
An extensions folder (self explanatory) — contained in ~/.vscode[1]
user-data-dir; a folder for all other personalisable things (settings, keybindings, GitHub/MS account credential caches, themes, tasks.json, you name it)[2]
On Linux the latter is located in ~/.config/Code, and has file permissions mode 0700 (unreadable and unwritable by anybody other than the owner).
This causes issues, as VS Code tries and fails to access said directory. The logical solution is to either modify the permissions (recursively) of ~/.config/Code to allow root access, or — arguably saner and objectively more privacy-respecting — to use a separate directory altogether for the sudo'ed VS Code to access.
The latter strategy is what the community decided to adopt at large; this commit from 2016 started making it compulsory to pass an explicit --user-data-dir when sudo-ing VS Code on Linux.
Should You be Doing This in the First Place?
Probably not! If your goal is to modify system config files, then you could stick to an un-elevated instance of Code, which would prompt you to Save as Admin... when you try to save. See this answer on Ask Ubuntu on why you probably want to avoid elevating VS Code without reason (unless you understand the risks and/or have to), and this one on the same thread on what you could do instead.
However, if the concerned file is read-restricted to root as well, as in the O.P’s case, then you hardly have a choice 😕; sudo away! 😀
[1] & [2]: If you want to know more about the above two folder paths on different OSes, see [1] and [2]
Hope this was helpful!
It might be helpful to easily find the default location of the user-data-dir on any OS. It can be found with this command:
Developer: Open User Data Folder
workbench.action.openUserDataFolder
which is in the Insiders Build v1.75 now, Stable soon. Opens your OS file explorer app to the location.
I am trying to create a standalone app with a resources folder that is writable. I would like to include this in the exe, similar as to how it is done on OSX with an .app. Is this possible?
Thanks!
Assuming that you're talking about a modern Windows OS you're probably going to have problems with this even if you could come up with a solution. Most apps gets put under the Program Files directory and by default only Admins have write permissions there so it's generally seen as a bad thing to store anything the app needs to write to next to the executable in Windows.
My application is not supposed to perform any administrative tasks, so I want a normal User account to be able to run it. Only thing is, my application reads from and writes to a database file; if the user running Windows 7 (Or Vista) installs my app in drive C, the drive's default permission set configuration doesn't allow my app to write data.
How can I allow my app to write to C:, without requiring full administrative privileges?
If the database file exists at install time you can just grant the user write access to the file as part of the installation process (ordinary users do not have this permission by default). If the file needs to be created by the program the user running the program will need modify permissions on the c drive, which is not something that I would recommend.
I'd suggest storing your db file in Documents and Settings / App data / your app / directory. It exists specifically for this purpose. Writing to C:/Program Files is not so good practice. If that's possible in your case, that is.
You need to open UAC (User Account Access) and set security slider to the bottom. Then you can access drive C: as you did in windows XP.
I decided to modify directory permissions in the setup process, so I created an .exe file that changes the permissions of its start-up path, and gives all users access to that path. I simply included that .exe file in my deployment project, and created a Custom Action that would run the file in the Commit phase of installation.
Because the setup asks the user for administrative rights when it is being installed, my .exe also enjoys administrative privileges and can modify the permissions of the installation directory.
In my .exe, I used a Process instance to run the ACL utility shipped with Windows (icacls.exe) as follows:
ICACLS.EXE [TargetDir] /T /C /grant Users:F
(Make sure that [TargetDir] doesn't end with a "\" or the call will fail.)
This gives all users full control access to the target directory.
I could also write .NET code and change directory permissions manually, but I'm a little lazy!
You may however want to inspect your environment conditions thoroughly so that what you do wouldn't become a security hole in your environment; but this was suitable for me.
I hope this helps others who faced the same issue.
The user by default should have write permissions to drive C:, if not, then you will need to change the directory you read from and write to, to the executing directory (C:/Program Files/Your App/) rather than the root of C:
You can get this by
String Path = Path.GetDirectoryName(Application.ExecutablePath);
I am creating a graphical installer that should run on Linux. Installing should consist of copying files to some places in /usr. Currently the installer is written in Python.
How can I escalate the privileges of my installer when I need to copy files? I looked at PolicyKit but
a) there doesn't seem to be a generic "install files" action-id for PolicyKit
b) of the action ids I can use, I don't think they are standard across distros
I also looked at PAM and I have code that uses libpam but I can't seem to do anything with it. After authenticating my user (by providing username and password) I don't have write access to /usr. I tried changing my user with os.setuid(0) after authentication but I get an error from the OS.
Also, strangely, it doesn't seem to matter what service I provide to pam_start. As long as the username and password are correct I can pass anything I want. I see I have /etc/pam.d/sudo. The below code is simplified, the password is correctly stored in a pam_conversation object and I do pass a handle object.
pam_start("my_user", "my_pass", "sudo_garbage_12345");
works just as well as
pam_start("my_user", "my_pass", "sudo");
That is, they both succeed.
As a last resort I can probably execute gksudo or kdesudo but I don't want to be tied to those programs. Requiring users to invoke my installer with sudo is a (very) last resort.
You might be better off wrapping RPM with a front end that takes the user options and invokes RPM to do the hard work. This also gives you infrastructure for managing dependencies and plays nicely with the existing package management system. If you need to run on a .deb based system (Debian or Ubuntu) you may also need to consturct a .deb and put some mechanism in the front end that works out which package management system is active.
Granting random users access to root privilege is generally viewed as bad form on Linux or Unix systems (or any multi-user system for that matter) as it is a significant security risk. However you do have the option of letting the user install it under their home directory (~/bin) if they don't have root access or sudo permissions that allow them to write to system areas. In this case you can require them to install it as root if they want to install in /usr/bin but permit them to install it under their home directory for their own use if they don't have root privileges.
For a graphical installer, stick with a graphical environment. Use gksudo or kdesudo if they are available, otherwise fail with an error dialog saying they need root. People (newbies in particular) will download your installer and double-click to launch it from their desktop, and you need a graphical way to ask them for their password. You don't want to pop open a terminal on them.
Given that, don't do sudo for them even if they are running from the terminal. Just output an error saying you need root and exit. If the user is already at the command prompt (like I most likely would be), I already know how to sudo or su myself into root if I want to do so. I promise you you will most likely ruffle some feathers if you attempt to make an experienced user root when they can do it themselves.
If you INSIST on doing a sudo yourself from within your installer, for God's sake please force a 'sudo -K' before you do to remove the previous timestamp. If you don't do this, and I have sudo'd recently, you will run your installer with me as root without my knowledge (since I don't expect that to happen). A 'sudo -K' will force a prompt that I can then decide whether I want to proceed as root or not.
The best way in this case is to use su within your program. Redirect inputs/outputs and you're good to go!