Presumably...

...you can change the permission settings so that you have permission to view the permissions so that you don't get an error telling you that you don't have permission to view the permissions because you do have permission to change the permissions...

See - it makes perfect sense ;)

You can´t see, but you can change...

You can´t see the permission settings, but you can change them?

Oh, It is like the IQ of the programmers that came up with that message: you can´t know their IQ for certain, but that IQ can be changed.

Or you can compare that message to blindfolded brain surgeon: you can´t see what is going on, but you can certainly perform a lobotomy in that fashion. I guess the programmer experienced the last example.

You can´t view the permissions, you have to change them blindfolded. It reminds me of reaching a back-panel USB port to connect a chunky flash drive for some reason...

You must be on the ACL...

Windows NT is one of those funny OS where even Administrator must appear on the ACL (Access Control List) for a file and folder permission. If administrator doesn't appear old version of windows would give you an "Access Denied"... This error message is replacement for that message.

You'd then sit back in your chair and say "What the **** but I'm THE ADMINISTRATOR"... The admin account has always had the user rights to modify ACL. So if you accidentally removed yourself you could add yourself back again.

Its not uncommon for OSes to have this wierdness. Novell people will remember how various version of the Netware OS allowed to delete the "supervisor" account and thus lock yourself out of your system. Nice.

Of course these sorts of issues completely confuse end-users of client operating systems.... Perhaps Donald Rumsfield has been given a executive position on the Vista programme - his role is plain-english....

Regards

Mike Laverick

RTFM Education

www.rtfm-ed.co.uk

it's vista

It's MS are we surprised.

the ability to write permissions or overwrite permissions when you can't see the permissions can only mean there is an added layer of security to do this, beyond reading and writing as Leo said to "Write only". So what if that person who doesn't know vista or is malicious rewrites the permissions of someone superior, say an admin to rewrite the permissions to a lower setting, or worse, rewriting their permission to give them more rights than they had previously. where are the limits to this, what if the situatoin were applied to files and not users. So some people have the permision for individual file access but can view their permissions so can't tell if they have read / write access, so attempt to assign permissions which simply screws that all important sales spreadsheet.

Joy!!

Schroedinger's Access Rights

If you can't see the permissions, are they allow or deny?

Does the act of viewing the permissions cause them to change?

Vista

Oh god, I've got Vista at home.

<sob>

Yeah, but what's the iPhone angle?

I mean, come on, if there's no iPhone angle then we can't have two pages of comments from arseholes telling us that a) the Nokia N95 is way better and free or b) Apple users are cretinous sheep with egos the size of Bulgaria.

Do try and keep up, Bond.

The old ones are still the best...

Anybody else here remember the old classic PC POST message... "Keyboard errror: press F1 to continue."?

@Leo Davidson

And people say the Linux command line makes things awkward for regular users ;)

Not so surprising, really.

Although, it's poorly worded. It more or less means that your USER does not have the rights to read properties for the directory, but your role (member of administrator) has the rights to override this by changing the rights (adding your user to the directory, or taking ownership). Getting this message usually means that you've moved the disk from one machine to another, and the new machine doesn't match your old one.

For instance, S-1-5-21-876458292-3775830415-4227086151-1005 might resolve to your username on the old computer, but the new computer doesn't even have a name for it. If that user is the only one with access privileges to the directory, your only chance is to override the rights structure by applying your god-like administrative rights. Since these rights are on the other side of an UAC acknowledge dialog, you get an error.

Elementary, my dear DRWATSON.EXE

//Svein

Hardware button needed

It's always annoying when something comes up and says you haven't got permission, especially when you're the administrator. As a workaround to Microsoft's annoying boxes I recon they ought to support a new peice of hardware that's bundled and linked to every motherboard - the "It's my f**king computer - p**s off!" button. One press and the message box goes away and shows you what you want.

only one thing to say

chown -R us ~/Desktop/

Still my favorite Vista error is:

(Admittedly this was on the Beta version) Vista told me I must have permission from 'everyone' to access files on my secondary FAT32 drive. That could take a while... guess I'll start at the "A"s in the phone book...

Just wait for the Outsourced applications

For obtuse error messages in a multitude of different hybrids of English, Local languages and techno babble where even people knowing the application will struggle to workout the message (usually just means something went wrong ;) )

Of course the theory of people learning English as a second language are better at speaking and writing it so should improve things – however most of these will be earning more money in call centres, not writing code.

The Permission message in the article, though rather poorly thought out, does at least make sense to those of us understanding the Windows Security Model

What's wrong with that?

Oh come on people. I know we all are MS bashers around here but it makes sense. Plus XP used to to the same (and I'd imagine 2000 too).

It simply means that you don't have access to view the security permissions. You can give yourself access by taking ownership of the file\folder and then you can mess to your hearts content.

Granted using the word permissions three times in a sentence to explain a permissions issue is a OTT but what you going to do? It was written in US English (if there is such a thing- Grrrr).

Consistency, children, please!

The second post to this article mentioned "write only", and I'd have thought the readership of El Reg would have no trouble with that concept even if end-users might be surprised.

Nevertheless, this post is followed by a torrent of confused replies. Clearly, none of you bothered to read the second post before adding your own, so why up you getting narked that Windows might not let you view permissions before changing them?

This displays

the fine granularity of access control that can only be achieved through the use of the genuine microsoft windows family of operating systems.

@Jonathon Green

> Anybody else here remember the old classic PC POST message...

> "Keyboard error: press F1 to continue."?

I had that just this week, and had a moment of nostalgia when I recalled the days when all PCs required a keyboard to boot! (Was booting up an ancient P2 from pre-2000 to see what was on it before it gets consigned to the bin)

Win2000

Am I the only one who remembers Administrators could completely deny themselves access to folders in the first Win2000? I think it took a hotfix or service pack before Admins could regain access to their denied folders.

Maybe I'm making it up? Look! He's got an iPhone over there! Get 'im!

Exeunt.

Language is the Core [C Ore] Discipline?

"The Permission message in the article, though rather poorly thought out, does at least make sense to those of us understanding the Windows Security Model" ... which is Anonymous Coward?

"Has Microsoft been overrun by civil servants? " .... Simon, Would it be more likely the Reverse/Converse? Now that would be Spooky and a Real and Present Convenience for Core Disciplines/Bods and Boffins.

Try this one then

"Only public user defined types defined in public object modules can be used as parameters or return types for public procedures of class modules or as fields of public user defined types." - from Micro$oft VB6

When an early version of Micro$oft C++ complained about an "illegal global destructor" I had a good look round, but I could not see any unlicensed nuclear weapon in the vicinity.

Oh shut up

Just reformat and install better OS.

re: amanfromMars - Window Security

I suggest you go a dig out a book/online course on Windows Security rather than stay in ignorance

if you can't handle such a simple message..

maybe you shouldn't be using Windows. Go play with loonix ... then you can knock your brains out on the keyboard when it comes whining that some script bombs out on something and that you need to install patch so and so , recompile the kernel , change the filesystem, install another patch and then recompile again. And after that youll find out that you have the wrong distro and should be running Ubutu instead of Redhat and that all your other stuff stopped working because the patches broke the system, and that you can do more patching and messing with the system.

The user message is simple no ?

You tried changing permissions. EY your current privilige level is not high enough to do that. So, you need to first change your own permissions so you get the privilege to do whatever you wanted to do.

all your permission settings are belong to us

Its easy to work with vista - just make the following adjustments to your pc settings

reboot

f8 - boot from CD

Format partition C

Install XPPro

amanfromMars replied?

My imagination, or does the remark above by amanfrommars look like a direct reply to the Anom coward post above?

Perhaps amanfromMars is getting more intelligent? Perhaps too intelligent?

DOS

I miss MS-DOS....

@ Geoff

alas... i do.And every friggin time there is an update to some software i need to tinker with the system to get it (the software) to work. For this revision you need kernel so and so with patch so and so applied. Except if you install that kernel version or some other patch that some other program stops working. And these are -very- expensive programs. (silicon design) It's now at the point that we simply install a box with the right OS and all the modules needed and the software that needs to run on it.. And then open a remote terminal from another machine into it (PC's running XP) ... So far we have 3 different 'linux installations' to run the various programs we need ... all because none is compatible with another.

And Steven interprets the message correctly.

What the message says is : You tried seeing the permissions for item A. Unfortunately your permissions ( permissions 'B') don't allow that. You can change your permissions (B) to allow seeing the permissions on item 'A'.

Some Warped (pun intended) minds may interpret the message as : you can't read permissions for 'A' but you can 'write' them...

Reminds me of the WOM that fairchild made in 1972 .. write only memory. Specifically made for safekeeping of sensitive data .. there is a pdf still out there of the actual datasheet...

To everyone who is explaining what the error means

Yes, we *know* what it means, but it's the most ridiculous way of putting it. If they're using so many words in their errors, what's so hard about saying "You do not have permissions to this file/folder. You may take ownership and reassign permissions."

@Jonathon Green

Anybody else here remember the old classic PC POST message... "Keyboard errror: press F1 to continue."?

I remember a friend getting that one ... IN A LAPTOP. Now that was really weird...

Looks like an error message written by ....

aManFromMars.

Guess we know where he works then ...

</coat>