Why can other users see the files in my home folder?How to make sure other users can't see my files?Default home directory permission allow read?Why do user directories have such lax permissions by default?What is “umask” and how does it work?How do file permissions work?How can I prevent other users from accessing my home directory?Hide multiple files at once with shell scriptIs there a default folder for sharing files with other users?Why is a user not a member of their private group (UPG) according to the GUI? (although CLI proves the opposite…)Is running unknown applications in a separate non root account safe?How can I restrict program access to other users?Share folder between usersHome folder not writeableHow can I mv files from another user to my Home folder (knowing the password of the other user)?Accessing Files in Other Users FTP Folder?Unable to access old (deleted) user's home folder and files and don't have permissions to read, write or delete themCan root see my encrypted /home folder?

Are there any privately owned large commercial airports?

one-liner vs script

Black? I ordered it dyed red!

Is any device installed on airplane to measure wind speed relative to the ground, and its direction?

How can I retrieve email templates from a sandbox using the Salesforce CLI?

What can damage a lich in an antimagic field?

What powers an aircraft prior to the APU being switched on?

What is the meaning of "log" in "hours logged"?

Why is lying to Congress a crime?

How to remind myself to lock my doors

Is data science mathematically interesting?

Little Endian Number to String Conversion

What kind of tools would be used to carve bone?

What is joint estimation?

Is it anti-pattern to have inheritence in a dto?

What is this cast-iron device on my water supply pipe?

How to execute a project with two resources where you need three resources?

Why is coffee provided during big chess events when it contains a banned substance?

Can you decide not to sneak into a room after seeing your roll?

Modern warfare theory in a medieval setting

Is there a reason behind the 'Ending' joke?

My first random password generator

Can you pitch an outline?

Looking for PC graphics demo software from the early 90s called "Unreal"



Why can other users see the files in my home folder?


How to make sure other users can't see my files?Default home directory permission allow read?Why do user directories have such lax permissions by default?What is “umask” and how does it work?How do file permissions work?How can I prevent other users from accessing my home directory?Hide multiple files at once with shell scriptIs there a default folder for sharing files with other users?Why is a user not a member of their private group (UPG) according to the GUI? (although CLI proves the opposite…)Is running unknown applications in a separate non root account safe?How can I restrict program access to other users?Share folder between usersHome folder not writeableHow can I mv files from another user to my Home folder (knowing the password of the other user)?Accessing Files in Other Users FTP Folder?Unable to access old (deleted) user's home folder and files and don't have permissions to read, write or delete themCan root see my encrypted /home folder?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;









36

















I just added a new, underprivileged "desktop user," and I was surprised to discover that it can see the files in my home folder.



What is the rational for setting up such lax permissions?










share|improve this question


























  • Related: unix.stackexchange.com/a/315197/85039

    – Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
    Mar 5 '17 at 8:20

















36

















I just added a new, underprivileged "desktop user," and I was surprised to discover that it can see the files in my home folder.



What is the rational for setting up such lax permissions?










share|improve this question


























  • Related: unix.stackexchange.com/a/315197/85039

    – Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
    Mar 5 '17 at 8:20













36












36








36


22






I just added a new, underprivileged "desktop user," and I was surprised to discover that it can see the files in my home folder.



What is the rational for setting up such lax permissions?










share|improve this question














I just added a new, underprivileged "desktop user," and I was surprised to discover that it can see the files in my home folder.



What is the rational for setting up such lax permissions?







permissions users default privacy






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question



share|improve this question










asked Jun 2 '11 at 1:53









ændrükændrük

43.4k64 gold badges202 silver badges345 bronze badges




43.4k64 gold badges202 silver badges345 bronze badges















  • Related: unix.stackexchange.com/a/315197/85039

    – Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
    Mar 5 '17 at 8:20

















  • Related: unix.stackexchange.com/a/315197/85039

    – Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
    Mar 5 '17 at 8:20
















Related: unix.stackexchange.com/a/315197/85039

– Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
Mar 5 '17 at 8:20





Related: unix.stackexchange.com/a/315197/85039

– Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
Mar 5 '17 at 8:20










7 Answers
7






active

oldest

votes


















31


















A Public folder exists in your Home directory (/home/user) for sharing files with other users. If an other user wants to get access to this Public folder, the execute bit for the world should be set on the Home directory.



If you do not need to allow others to access your home folder (other humans or users like www-data for a webserver), you'll be fine with chmod o-rwx "$HOME" (remove read/write/execute from "other", equivalent to chmod 750 "$HOME" since the default permission is 750). Otherwise, you should change the umask setting too to prevent newly created files from getting read permissions for the world by default.



For a system-wide configuration, edit /etc/profile; per-user settings can be configured in ~/.profile. I prefer the same policy for all users, so I'd edit the /etc/profile file and append the line:



umask 027


You need to re-login to apply these changes, unless you're in a shell. In that case, you can run umask 027 in the shell.



Now to fix the existing permissions, you need to remove the read/write/execute permissions from other:



chmod -R o-rwx ~


Now if you decide to share the ~/Public folder to everyone, run the next commands:




  • chmod o+x ~ - allow everyone to descend in the directory (x), but not get a directory listing (r should not be added)


  • find ~/Public -type f -exec chmod o+r ; - allow everyone to read the files in ~/Public


  • find ~/Public -type d -exec chmod o+rx ; - allow everyone to descend into directories and list their contents

If you are use GNU coreutils (e.g. on Ubuntu, not on a embedded system having only busybox), then the previous two commands using find and chmod can be replaced by this single command that recursively makes folders and files readable (and additionally adds the execute (descend) bit for directories only):



chmod -R o+rX ~/Public





share|improve this answer



































    12


















    According to an Ubuntuforms.org staff member, it is to make it easier to share files between new users.



    You can change the permission to either 700 or 750 if you don't want the files readable and executable by others.



    Command is:



    chmod 750 $HOME


    Note: Ubuntu default is 755






    share|improve this answer























    • 2





      Of course other users shouldn't be sudoers.

      – Pablo A
      Feb 3 '18 at 4:29


















    6


















    According to Mark Shuttleworth,




    "The majority of users of Ubuntu systems either have exclusive use of the
    machine (personal laptop) or are sharing with friends and relatives. We
    assume that the people who share the machine are either trusted, or in a
    position to hack the machine (boot from USB!) trivially. As a result,
    there is little to no benefit"




    ... from removing those permissions.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 12





      I think having the same behavior in the Server edition is a security hole

      – warvariuc
      Mar 28 '15 at 6:55






    • 4





      That is a crazy explanations. Other than people accounts there are technical accounts that people can use to isolate applications. Additionally there is a lot of instructions on how to set up a local ftp server that essentially shares the account on the machine.

      – Barafu Albino
      Oct 11 '15 at 14:51






    • 4





      I know this is old thread, but consider this as stupid decision. Imagine one of the users run app/script (can be unintentionally) which is able to read and send files from any other profile.

      – mauron85
      Apr 12 '17 at 11:25


















    5


















    You can read the User Management section of the Ubuntu Server Guide which covers the necessary details. The User Profile Security paragraph will probably answer your questions - officially.






    share|improve this answer























    • 4





      I appreciate the official source. Sadly, though, it doesn't look like it provides any justification.

      – ændrük
      Jun 10 '11 at 4:10


















    1


















    I think Lekensteyn's answer can be improved by replacing the last two find commands with chmod using -X option (note the capital X). The two find commands can be replaced with



    chmod -R o+rX ~/Public



    This differentiates appropriately between files and directories, but does have the additional effect of allowing others to run executable files.






    share|improve this answer

































      0


















      Since it is privacy that interests you (judging from the tags that were applied) it is very possible that setting permissions is insufficient (see ignis's answer). The answer may be something along the lines of an encrypted home directory. This solution is specifically designed against the attack by another user of a computer. It will, of course, be unable to stop another user from damaging your files (by simply removing ~/.Private directory, thus erasing all of your files), but they will be unable to mount the directory and see the files without your password.



      The easiest way to achieve that is during the installation process, there is a check box, stating "Encrypt your home directory" and you need to select that.



      Since it is unlikely that you will want to reinstall just for that (and because it still carries all the risks that are entailed with doing it without reinstall), you can do the following:



      sudo apt-get install encryptfs-utils
      encryptfs-migrate-home





      share|improve this answer

































        -1


















        If you really need a high level of security: please re-install and make sure to choose the option to encrypt your entire disk. This will require a passphrase to even start the machine. You may of course also encrypt your home folder once more on top of this, with some performance degradation; though not noticeable for normal use.



        Please note, that encrypting your home folder will disable applications like Dropbox. Dropbox is not secure storage that respects privacy anyway, so that may be a trite point. However, if you do need secure and private storage in the cloud, I would personally recommend MEGAsync since only you would have the keys to access the data.






        share|improve this answer



























          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "89"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );














          draft saved

          draft discarded
















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f46501%2fwhy-can-other-users-see-the-files-in-my-home-folder%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          7 Answers
          7






          active

          oldest

          votes








          7 Answers
          7






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          31


















          A Public folder exists in your Home directory (/home/user) for sharing files with other users. If an other user wants to get access to this Public folder, the execute bit for the world should be set on the Home directory.



          If you do not need to allow others to access your home folder (other humans or users like www-data for a webserver), you'll be fine with chmod o-rwx "$HOME" (remove read/write/execute from "other", equivalent to chmod 750 "$HOME" since the default permission is 750). Otherwise, you should change the umask setting too to prevent newly created files from getting read permissions for the world by default.



          For a system-wide configuration, edit /etc/profile; per-user settings can be configured in ~/.profile. I prefer the same policy for all users, so I'd edit the /etc/profile file and append the line:



          umask 027


          You need to re-login to apply these changes, unless you're in a shell. In that case, you can run umask 027 in the shell.



          Now to fix the existing permissions, you need to remove the read/write/execute permissions from other:



          chmod -R o-rwx ~


          Now if you decide to share the ~/Public folder to everyone, run the next commands:




          • chmod o+x ~ - allow everyone to descend in the directory (x), but not get a directory listing (r should not be added)


          • find ~/Public -type f -exec chmod o+r ; - allow everyone to read the files in ~/Public


          • find ~/Public -type d -exec chmod o+rx ; - allow everyone to descend into directories and list their contents

          If you are use GNU coreutils (e.g. on Ubuntu, not on a embedded system having only busybox), then the previous two commands using find and chmod can be replaced by this single command that recursively makes folders and files readable (and additionally adds the execute (descend) bit for directories only):



          chmod -R o+rX ~/Public





          share|improve this answer
































            31


















            A Public folder exists in your Home directory (/home/user) for sharing files with other users. If an other user wants to get access to this Public folder, the execute bit for the world should be set on the Home directory.



            If you do not need to allow others to access your home folder (other humans or users like www-data for a webserver), you'll be fine with chmod o-rwx "$HOME" (remove read/write/execute from "other", equivalent to chmod 750 "$HOME" since the default permission is 750). Otherwise, you should change the umask setting too to prevent newly created files from getting read permissions for the world by default.



            For a system-wide configuration, edit /etc/profile; per-user settings can be configured in ~/.profile. I prefer the same policy for all users, so I'd edit the /etc/profile file and append the line:



            umask 027


            You need to re-login to apply these changes, unless you're in a shell. In that case, you can run umask 027 in the shell.



            Now to fix the existing permissions, you need to remove the read/write/execute permissions from other:



            chmod -R o-rwx ~


            Now if you decide to share the ~/Public folder to everyone, run the next commands:




            • chmod o+x ~ - allow everyone to descend in the directory (x), but not get a directory listing (r should not be added)


            • find ~/Public -type f -exec chmod o+r ; - allow everyone to read the files in ~/Public


            • find ~/Public -type d -exec chmod o+rx ; - allow everyone to descend into directories and list their contents

            If you are use GNU coreutils (e.g. on Ubuntu, not on a embedded system having only busybox), then the previous two commands using find and chmod can be replaced by this single command that recursively makes folders and files readable (and additionally adds the execute (descend) bit for directories only):



            chmod -R o+rX ~/Public





            share|improve this answer






























              31














              31










              31









              A Public folder exists in your Home directory (/home/user) for sharing files with other users. If an other user wants to get access to this Public folder, the execute bit for the world should be set on the Home directory.



              If you do not need to allow others to access your home folder (other humans or users like www-data for a webserver), you'll be fine with chmod o-rwx "$HOME" (remove read/write/execute from "other", equivalent to chmod 750 "$HOME" since the default permission is 750). Otherwise, you should change the umask setting too to prevent newly created files from getting read permissions for the world by default.



              For a system-wide configuration, edit /etc/profile; per-user settings can be configured in ~/.profile. I prefer the same policy for all users, so I'd edit the /etc/profile file and append the line:



              umask 027


              You need to re-login to apply these changes, unless you're in a shell. In that case, you can run umask 027 in the shell.



              Now to fix the existing permissions, you need to remove the read/write/execute permissions from other:



              chmod -R o-rwx ~


              Now if you decide to share the ~/Public folder to everyone, run the next commands:




              • chmod o+x ~ - allow everyone to descend in the directory (x), but not get a directory listing (r should not be added)


              • find ~/Public -type f -exec chmod o+r ; - allow everyone to read the files in ~/Public


              • find ~/Public -type d -exec chmod o+rx ; - allow everyone to descend into directories and list their contents

              If you are use GNU coreutils (e.g. on Ubuntu, not on a embedded system having only busybox), then the previous two commands using find and chmod can be replaced by this single command that recursively makes folders and files readable (and additionally adds the execute (descend) bit for directories only):



              chmod -R o+rX ~/Public





              share|improve this answer
















              A Public folder exists in your Home directory (/home/user) for sharing files with other users. If an other user wants to get access to this Public folder, the execute bit for the world should be set on the Home directory.



              If you do not need to allow others to access your home folder (other humans or users like www-data for a webserver), you'll be fine with chmod o-rwx "$HOME" (remove read/write/execute from "other", equivalent to chmod 750 "$HOME" since the default permission is 750). Otherwise, you should change the umask setting too to prevent newly created files from getting read permissions for the world by default.



              For a system-wide configuration, edit /etc/profile; per-user settings can be configured in ~/.profile. I prefer the same policy for all users, so I'd edit the /etc/profile file and append the line:



              umask 027


              You need to re-login to apply these changes, unless you're in a shell. In that case, you can run umask 027 in the shell.



              Now to fix the existing permissions, you need to remove the read/write/execute permissions from other:



              chmod -R o-rwx ~


              Now if you decide to share the ~/Public folder to everyone, run the next commands:




              • chmod o+x ~ - allow everyone to descend in the directory (x), but not get a directory listing (r should not be added)


              • find ~/Public -type f -exec chmod o+r ; - allow everyone to read the files in ~/Public


              • find ~/Public -type d -exec chmod o+rx ; - allow everyone to descend into directories and list their contents

              If you are use GNU coreutils (e.g. on Ubuntu, not on a embedded system having only busybox), then the previous two commands using find and chmod can be replaced by this single command that recursively makes folders and files readable (and additionally adds the execute (descend) bit for directories only):



              chmod -R o+rX ~/Public






              share|improve this answer















              share|improve this answer




              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:25









              Community

              1




              1










              answered Jun 2 '11 at 8:04









              LekensteynLekensteyn

              131k51 gold badges274 silver badges366 bronze badges




              131k51 gold badges274 silver badges366 bronze badges


























                  12


















                  According to an Ubuntuforms.org staff member, it is to make it easier to share files between new users.



                  You can change the permission to either 700 or 750 if you don't want the files readable and executable by others.



                  Command is:



                  chmod 750 $HOME


                  Note: Ubuntu default is 755






                  share|improve this answer























                  • 2





                    Of course other users shouldn't be sudoers.

                    – Pablo A
                    Feb 3 '18 at 4:29















                  12


















                  According to an Ubuntuforms.org staff member, it is to make it easier to share files between new users.



                  You can change the permission to either 700 or 750 if you don't want the files readable and executable by others.



                  Command is:



                  chmod 750 $HOME


                  Note: Ubuntu default is 755






                  share|improve this answer























                  • 2





                    Of course other users shouldn't be sudoers.

                    – Pablo A
                    Feb 3 '18 at 4:29













                  12














                  12










                  12









                  According to an Ubuntuforms.org staff member, it is to make it easier to share files between new users.



                  You can change the permission to either 700 or 750 if you don't want the files readable and executable by others.



                  Command is:



                  chmod 750 $HOME


                  Note: Ubuntu default is 755






                  share|improve this answer
















                  According to an Ubuntuforms.org staff member, it is to make it easier to share files between new users.



                  You can change the permission to either 700 or 750 if you don't want the files readable and executable by others.



                  Command is:



                  chmod 750 $HOME


                  Note: Ubuntu default is 755







                  share|improve this answer















                  share|improve this answer




                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Jun 2 '11 at 2:25

























                  answered Jun 2 '11 at 2:19









                  Jason IversonJason Iverson

                  5583 silver badges12 bronze badges




                  5583 silver badges12 bronze badges










                  • 2





                    Of course other users shouldn't be sudoers.

                    – Pablo A
                    Feb 3 '18 at 4:29












                  • 2





                    Of course other users shouldn't be sudoers.

                    – Pablo A
                    Feb 3 '18 at 4:29







                  2




                  2





                  Of course other users shouldn't be sudoers.

                  – Pablo A
                  Feb 3 '18 at 4:29





                  Of course other users shouldn't be sudoers.

                  – Pablo A
                  Feb 3 '18 at 4:29











                  6


















                  According to Mark Shuttleworth,




                  "The majority of users of Ubuntu systems either have exclusive use of the
                  machine (personal laptop) or are sharing with friends and relatives. We
                  assume that the people who share the machine are either trusted, or in a
                  position to hack the machine (boot from USB!) trivially. As a result,
                  there is little to no benefit"




                  ... from removing those permissions.






                  share|improve this answer





















                  • 12





                    I think having the same behavior in the Server edition is a security hole

                    – warvariuc
                    Mar 28 '15 at 6:55






                  • 4





                    That is a crazy explanations. Other than people accounts there are technical accounts that people can use to isolate applications. Additionally there is a lot of instructions on how to set up a local ftp server that essentially shares the account on the machine.

                    – Barafu Albino
                    Oct 11 '15 at 14:51






                  • 4





                    I know this is old thread, but consider this as stupid decision. Imagine one of the users run app/script (can be unintentionally) which is able to read and send files from any other profile.

                    – mauron85
                    Apr 12 '17 at 11:25















                  6


















                  According to Mark Shuttleworth,




                  "The majority of users of Ubuntu systems either have exclusive use of the
                  machine (personal laptop) or are sharing with friends and relatives. We
                  assume that the people who share the machine are either trusted, or in a
                  position to hack the machine (boot from USB!) trivially. As a result,
                  there is little to no benefit"




                  ... from removing those permissions.






                  share|improve this answer





















                  • 12





                    I think having the same behavior in the Server edition is a security hole

                    – warvariuc
                    Mar 28 '15 at 6:55






                  • 4





                    That is a crazy explanations. Other than people accounts there are technical accounts that people can use to isolate applications. Additionally there is a lot of instructions on how to set up a local ftp server that essentially shares the account on the machine.

                    – Barafu Albino
                    Oct 11 '15 at 14:51






                  • 4





                    I know this is old thread, but consider this as stupid decision. Imagine one of the users run app/script (can be unintentionally) which is able to read and send files from any other profile.

                    – mauron85
                    Apr 12 '17 at 11:25













                  6














                  6










                  6









                  According to Mark Shuttleworth,




                  "The majority of users of Ubuntu systems either have exclusive use of the
                  machine (personal laptop) or are sharing with friends and relatives. We
                  assume that the people who share the machine are either trusted, or in a
                  position to hack the machine (boot from USB!) trivially. As a result,
                  there is little to no benefit"




                  ... from removing those permissions.






                  share|improve this answer














                  According to Mark Shuttleworth,




                  "The majority of users of Ubuntu systems either have exclusive use of the
                  machine (personal laptop) or are sharing with friends and relatives. We
                  assume that the people who share the machine are either trusted, or in a
                  position to hack the machine (boot from USB!) trivially. As a result,
                  there is little to no benefit"




                  ... from removing those permissions.







                  share|improve this answer













                  share|improve this answer




                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Sep 28 '13 at 22:48









                  ignisignis

                  3,47122 silver badges25 bronze badges




                  3,47122 silver badges25 bronze badges










                  • 12





                    I think having the same behavior in the Server edition is a security hole

                    – warvariuc
                    Mar 28 '15 at 6:55






                  • 4





                    That is a crazy explanations. Other than people accounts there are technical accounts that people can use to isolate applications. Additionally there is a lot of instructions on how to set up a local ftp server that essentially shares the account on the machine.

                    – Barafu Albino
                    Oct 11 '15 at 14:51






                  • 4





                    I know this is old thread, but consider this as stupid decision. Imagine one of the users run app/script (can be unintentionally) which is able to read and send files from any other profile.

                    – mauron85
                    Apr 12 '17 at 11:25












                  • 12





                    I think having the same behavior in the Server edition is a security hole

                    – warvariuc
                    Mar 28 '15 at 6:55






                  • 4





                    That is a crazy explanations. Other than people accounts there are technical accounts that people can use to isolate applications. Additionally there is a lot of instructions on how to set up a local ftp server that essentially shares the account on the machine.

                    – Barafu Albino
                    Oct 11 '15 at 14:51






                  • 4





                    I know this is old thread, but consider this as stupid decision. Imagine one of the users run app/script (can be unintentionally) which is able to read and send files from any other profile.

                    – mauron85
                    Apr 12 '17 at 11:25







                  12




                  12





                  I think having the same behavior in the Server edition is a security hole

                  – warvariuc
                  Mar 28 '15 at 6:55





                  I think having the same behavior in the Server edition is a security hole

                  – warvariuc
                  Mar 28 '15 at 6:55




                  4




                  4





                  That is a crazy explanations. Other than people accounts there are technical accounts that people can use to isolate applications. Additionally there is a lot of instructions on how to set up a local ftp server that essentially shares the account on the machine.

                  – Barafu Albino
                  Oct 11 '15 at 14:51





                  That is a crazy explanations. Other than people accounts there are technical accounts that people can use to isolate applications. Additionally there is a lot of instructions on how to set up a local ftp server that essentially shares the account on the machine.

                  – Barafu Albino
                  Oct 11 '15 at 14:51




                  4




                  4





                  I know this is old thread, but consider this as stupid decision. Imagine one of the users run app/script (can be unintentionally) which is able to read and send files from any other profile.

                  – mauron85
                  Apr 12 '17 at 11:25





                  I know this is old thread, but consider this as stupid decision. Imagine one of the users run app/script (can be unintentionally) which is able to read and send files from any other profile.

                  – mauron85
                  Apr 12 '17 at 11:25











                  5


















                  You can read the User Management section of the Ubuntu Server Guide which covers the necessary details. The User Profile Security paragraph will probably answer your questions - officially.






                  share|improve this answer























                  • 4





                    I appreciate the official source. Sadly, though, it doesn't look like it provides any justification.

                    – ændrük
                    Jun 10 '11 at 4:10















                  5


















                  You can read the User Management section of the Ubuntu Server Guide which covers the necessary details. The User Profile Security paragraph will probably answer your questions - officially.






                  share|improve this answer























                  • 4





                    I appreciate the official source. Sadly, though, it doesn't look like it provides any justification.

                    – ændrük
                    Jun 10 '11 at 4:10













                  5














                  5










                  5









                  You can read the User Management section of the Ubuntu Server Guide which covers the necessary details. The User Profile Security paragraph will probably answer your questions - officially.






                  share|improve this answer
















                  You can read the User Management section of the Ubuntu Server Guide which covers the necessary details. The User Profile Security paragraph will probably answer your questions - officially.







                  share|improve this answer















                  share|improve this answer




                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Feb 7 '18 at 17:04









                  David Foerster

                  29.4k13 gold badges70 silver badges116 bronze badges




                  29.4k13 gold badges70 silver badges116 bronze badges










                  answered Jun 2 '11 at 3:09









                  Pavlos G.Pavlos G.

                  7,6461 gold badge28 silver badges33 bronze badges




                  7,6461 gold badge28 silver badges33 bronze badges










                  • 4





                    I appreciate the official source. Sadly, though, it doesn't look like it provides any justification.

                    – ændrük
                    Jun 10 '11 at 4:10












                  • 4





                    I appreciate the official source. Sadly, though, it doesn't look like it provides any justification.

                    – ændrük
                    Jun 10 '11 at 4:10







                  4




                  4





                  I appreciate the official source. Sadly, though, it doesn't look like it provides any justification.

                  – ændrük
                  Jun 10 '11 at 4:10





                  I appreciate the official source. Sadly, though, it doesn't look like it provides any justification.

                  – ændrük
                  Jun 10 '11 at 4:10











                  1


















                  I think Lekensteyn's answer can be improved by replacing the last two find commands with chmod using -X option (note the capital X). The two find commands can be replaced with



                  chmod -R o+rX ~/Public



                  This differentiates appropriately between files and directories, but does have the additional effect of allowing others to run executable files.






                  share|improve this answer






























                    1


















                    I think Lekensteyn's answer can be improved by replacing the last two find commands with chmod using -X option (note the capital X). The two find commands can be replaced with



                    chmod -R o+rX ~/Public



                    This differentiates appropriately between files and directories, but does have the additional effect of allowing others to run executable files.






                    share|improve this answer




























                      1














                      1










                      1









                      I think Lekensteyn's answer can be improved by replacing the last two find commands with chmod using -X option (note the capital X). The two find commands can be replaced with



                      chmod -R o+rX ~/Public



                      This differentiates appropriately between files and directories, but does have the additional effect of allowing others to run executable files.






                      share|improve this answer














                      I think Lekensteyn's answer can be improved by replacing the last two find commands with chmod using -X option (note the capital X). The two find commands can be replaced with



                      chmod -R o+rX ~/Public



                      This differentiates appropriately between files and directories, but does have the additional effect of allowing others to run executable files.







                      share|improve this answer













                      share|improve this answer




                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Mar 25 '12 at 19:11









                      spinupspinup

                      3422 silver badges6 bronze badges




                      3422 silver badges6 bronze badges
























                          0


















                          Since it is privacy that interests you (judging from the tags that were applied) it is very possible that setting permissions is insufficient (see ignis's answer). The answer may be something along the lines of an encrypted home directory. This solution is specifically designed against the attack by another user of a computer. It will, of course, be unable to stop another user from damaging your files (by simply removing ~/.Private directory, thus erasing all of your files), but they will be unable to mount the directory and see the files without your password.



                          The easiest way to achieve that is during the installation process, there is a check box, stating "Encrypt your home directory" and you need to select that.



                          Since it is unlikely that you will want to reinstall just for that (and because it still carries all the risks that are entailed with doing it without reinstall), you can do the following:



                          sudo apt-get install encryptfs-utils
                          encryptfs-migrate-home





                          share|improve this answer






























                            0


















                            Since it is privacy that interests you (judging from the tags that were applied) it is very possible that setting permissions is insufficient (see ignis's answer). The answer may be something along the lines of an encrypted home directory. This solution is specifically designed against the attack by another user of a computer. It will, of course, be unable to stop another user from damaging your files (by simply removing ~/.Private directory, thus erasing all of your files), but they will be unable to mount the directory and see the files without your password.



                            The easiest way to achieve that is during the installation process, there is a check box, stating "Encrypt your home directory" and you need to select that.



                            Since it is unlikely that you will want to reinstall just for that (and because it still carries all the risks that are entailed with doing it without reinstall), you can do the following:



                            sudo apt-get install encryptfs-utils
                            encryptfs-migrate-home





                            share|improve this answer




























                              0














                              0










                              0









                              Since it is privacy that interests you (judging from the tags that were applied) it is very possible that setting permissions is insufficient (see ignis's answer). The answer may be something along the lines of an encrypted home directory. This solution is specifically designed against the attack by another user of a computer. It will, of course, be unable to stop another user from damaging your files (by simply removing ~/.Private directory, thus erasing all of your files), but they will be unable to mount the directory and see the files without your password.



                              The easiest way to achieve that is during the installation process, there is a check box, stating "Encrypt your home directory" and you need to select that.



                              Since it is unlikely that you will want to reinstall just for that (and because it still carries all the risks that are entailed with doing it without reinstall), you can do the following:



                              sudo apt-get install encryptfs-utils
                              encryptfs-migrate-home





                              share|improve this answer














                              Since it is privacy that interests you (judging from the tags that were applied) it is very possible that setting permissions is insufficient (see ignis's answer). The answer may be something along the lines of an encrypted home directory. This solution is specifically designed against the attack by another user of a computer. It will, of course, be unable to stop another user from damaging your files (by simply removing ~/.Private directory, thus erasing all of your files), but they will be unable to mount the directory and see the files without your password.



                              The easiest way to achieve that is during the installation process, there is a check box, stating "Encrypt your home directory" and you need to select that.



                              Since it is unlikely that you will want to reinstall just for that (and because it still carries all the risks that are entailed with doing it without reinstall), you can do the following:



                              sudo apt-get install encryptfs-utils
                              encryptfs-migrate-home






                              share|improve this answer













                              share|improve this answer




                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer










                              answered Apr 18 at 3:42









                              v010dyav010dya

                              7342 gold badges9 silver badges30 bronze badges




                              7342 gold badges9 silver badges30 bronze badges
























                                  -1


















                                  If you really need a high level of security: please re-install and make sure to choose the option to encrypt your entire disk. This will require a passphrase to even start the machine. You may of course also encrypt your home folder once more on top of this, with some performance degradation; though not noticeable for normal use.



                                  Please note, that encrypting your home folder will disable applications like Dropbox. Dropbox is not secure storage that respects privacy anyway, so that may be a trite point. However, if you do need secure and private storage in the cloud, I would personally recommend MEGAsync since only you would have the keys to access the data.






                                  share|improve this answer






























                                    -1


















                                    If you really need a high level of security: please re-install and make sure to choose the option to encrypt your entire disk. This will require a passphrase to even start the machine. You may of course also encrypt your home folder once more on top of this, with some performance degradation; though not noticeable for normal use.



                                    Please note, that encrypting your home folder will disable applications like Dropbox. Dropbox is not secure storage that respects privacy anyway, so that may be a trite point. However, if you do need secure and private storage in the cloud, I would personally recommend MEGAsync since only you would have the keys to access the data.






                                    share|improve this answer




























                                      -1














                                      -1










                                      -1









                                      If you really need a high level of security: please re-install and make sure to choose the option to encrypt your entire disk. This will require a passphrase to even start the machine. You may of course also encrypt your home folder once more on top of this, with some performance degradation; though not noticeable for normal use.



                                      Please note, that encrypting your home folder will disable applications like Dropbox. Dropbox is not secure storage that respects privacy anyway, so that may be a trite point. However, if you do need secure and private storage in the cloud, I would personally recommend MEGAsync since only you would have the keys to access the data.






                                      share|improve this answer














                                      If you really need a high level of security: please re-install and make sure to choose the option to encrypt your entire disk. This will require a passphrase to even start the machine. You may of course also encrypt your home folder once more on top of this, with some performance degradation; though not noticeable for normal use.



                                      Please note, that encrypting your home folder will disable applications like Dropbox. Dropbox is not secure storage that respects privacy anyway, so that may be a trite point. However, if you do need secure and private storage in the cloud, I would personally recommend MEGAsync since only you would have the keys to access the data.







                                      share|improve this answer













                                      share|improve this answer




                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer










                                      answered Apr 18 at 6:39









                                      SLSSLS

                                      1047 bronze badges




                                      1047 bronze badges































                                          draft saved

                                          draft discarded















































                                          Thanks for contributing an answer to Ask Ubuntu!


                                          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                          But avoid


                                          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                                          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          StackExchange.ready(
                                          function ()
                                          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f46501%2fwhy-can-other-users-see-the-files-in-my-home-folder%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                          );

                                          Post as a guest















                                          Required, but never shown





















































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown

































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          Tamil (spriik) Luke uk diar | Nawigatjuun

                                          Align equal signs while including text over equalitiesAMS align: left aligned text/math plus multicolumn alignmentMultiple alignmentsAligning equations in multiple placesNumbering and aligning an equation with multiple columnsHow to align one equation with another multline equationUsing \ in environments inside the begintabularxNumber equations and preserving alignment of equal signsHow can I align equations to the left and to the right?Double equation alignment problem within align enviromentAligned within align: Why are they right-aligned?

                                          Training a classifier when some of the features are unknownWhy does Gradient Boosting regression predict negative values when there are no negative y-values in my training set?How to improve an existing (trained) classifier?What is effect when I set up some self defined predisctor variables?Why Matlab neural network classification returns decimal values on prediction dataset?Fitting and transforming text data in training, testing, and validation setsHow to quantify the performance of the classifier (multi-class SVM) using the test data?How do I control for some patients providing multiple samples in my training data?Training and Test setTraining a convolutional neural network for image denoising in MatlabShouldn't an autoencoder with #(neurons in hidden layer) = #(neurons in input layer) be “perfect”?