X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 	tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <26250118.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 17:06:35 -0800 (PST)
From: aputerguy <nabble AT kosowsky DOT org>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Why do 'find' and 'ls' act differently on ACLs
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com


As a newbie to Windoze/ACL security, I am probably missing something.
But...
Why do 'ls and 'find' seem to treat the ACL restrictions differently.

Specifically, 'ls /c/Documents and Settings/Administrators' works
while 'find /c/Documents and Settings/Administrators' returns:
   find: `/c/Documents and Settings/Administrator/': Permission denied

I would have thought that 'ls' and 'find' would be bound by the same ACL
restrictions.

Am I missing something basic here in my understanding?
-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Why-do-%27find%27-and-%27ls%27-act-differently-on-ACLs-tp26250118p26250118.html
Sent from the Cygwin list mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple