incorrect initial permissions on example book
See original GitHub issueThe example book created by jupyter-book create
creates files with permissions 775. None of these files are really executable, and therefore the correct permissions should be 664 (or probably 644)
To Reproduce
jupyter-book create test; ls -al test
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 3 years ago
- Comments:6 (5 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Incorrect Default Permissions [CWE-276] - ImmuniWeb
Incorrect Default Permissions weakness describes a case where software sets insecure permissions to objects on a system.
Read more >Restrict access to workbooks with Information Rights ...
Restrict permission to content in files · Save the workbook. · Select File > Info. · Select Protect Workbook, point to Restrict Permission...
Read more >CWE-276: Incorrect Default Permissions (4.9) - MITRE
During installation, installed file permissions are set to allow anyone to modify those files. This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories...
Read more >Copyright and Permissions - Research Guides at Regis College
For example, when an author publishes a book or a journal article, copyright often falls into the hands of the publisher.
Read more >File Ownership and Permissions - Running Linux ... - O'Reilly
Execute permission means you can run the file as a program. When each file is created, the system assigns some default permissions that...
Read more >Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start FreeTop Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Top GitHub Comments
I am working on it. I shall try to explore the context of the bug and reproduce it before making any changes to solve it. Thank you.
I confirm that this is fixed in the latest version. Not sure when, but time to close regardless.