How to `find` all files and folders with 0** permissions?










3















I had a strange situation where I've found a number of files and folders that had 000 permissions set. This was easily repairable via:



sudo find . -perm 000 -type f -exec chmod 664 ; 
sudo find . -perm 000 -type d -exec chmod 775 ;


Unfortunately I suddenly realized the problem was a bit more complicated with some odd permissions such as 044 and some other strange settings. It turns out that these are strewn about and unpredictable.



Is there a way to search for permissions such as 0** or other such very limiting permission configurations?










share|improve this question




























    3















    I had a strange situation where I've found a number of files and folders that had 000 permissions set. This was easily repairable via:



    sudo find . -perm 000 -type f -exec chmod 664 ; 
    sudo find . -perm 000 -type d -exec chmod 775 ;


    Unfortunately I suddenly realized the problem was a bit more complicated with some odd permissions such as 044 and some other strange settings. It turns out that these are strewn about and unpredictable.



    Is there a way to search for permissions such as 0** or other such very limiting permission configurations?










    share|improve this question


























      3












      3








      3


      1






      I had a strange situation where I've found a number of files and folders that had 000 permissions set. This was easily repairable via:



      sudo find . -perm 000 -type f -exec chmod 664 ; 
      sudo find . -perm 000 -type d -exec chmod 775 ;


      Unfortunately I suddenly realized the problem was a bit more complicated with some odd permissions such as 044 and some other strange settings. It turns out that these are strewn about and unpredictable.



      Is there a way to search for permissions such as 0** or other such very limiting permission configurations?










      share|improve this question
















      I had a strange situation where I've found a number of files and folders that had 000 permissions set. This was easily repairable via:



      sudo find . -perm 000 -type f -exec chmod 664 ; 
      sudo find . -perm 000 -type d -exec chmod 775 ;


      Unfortunately I suddenly realized the problem was a bit more complicated with some odd permissions such as 044 and some other strange settings. It turns out that these are strewn about and unpredictable.



      Is there a way to search for permissions such as 0** or other such very limiting permission configurations?







      shell permissions find osx






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Aug 27 '18 at 13:42









      Stephen Kitt

      174k24398473




      174k24398473










      asked Aug 27 '18 at 13:25









      ylluminateylluminate

      27618




      27618




















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          8














          I'd use something like this:



          find . ! -perm -u=r ! -perm -u=w ! -perm -u=x -ls


          Or if you prefer the octal notation:



          find . ! -perm -400 ! -perm -200 ! -perm -100 -ls


          Unfortunately, no idea, how to take it as one -perm option.



          That syntax above is standard except for the -ls part (common but not POSIX) which you can replace with -exec ls -disl + on systems where find doesn't support -ls to get a similar output.






          share|improve this answer

























          • @Stéphane Chazelas any arguments for use ! instead of -not ? IMHO it generates only problems in scripts, breaking pipes, needs to escape e.t.c.

            – Alexander
            Aug 27 '18 at 14:00






          • 2





            -not is not standard, ! alone is never a problem, it's even the name of a POSIX shell keyword (!) and it's commonly used as argument to the [ / test command in addition to find.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Aug 27 '18 at 14:01



















          7














          With GNU find, you can do this by looking for files which don’t match “any bit set for the owner”:



          find . ! -perm /700


          The same in e.g. FreeBSD find is



          find . ! -perm +700


          Both of these work in the same way. -perm /700 or -perm +700 match if any of the owner permission bits are set; ! negates that, so ! -perm /700 or ! -perm +700 match if none of the owner permission bits are set. The other bits are ignored.






          share|improve this answer

























          • Oh so the / operator inverts the bit of the first one? Ie, if I were looking for group instead would this be applied to the 2nd bit? Just curious now at this point to understand the permission functionality better. Also, just tried on macOS and got the following error when run interactively: find: -perm: /700: illegal mode string

            – ylluminate
            Aug 27 '18 at 13:34







          • 1





            Ah, sorry, -perm / is a GNU extension which matches any of the given permission bits.

            – Stephen Kitt
            Aug 27 '18 at 13:41











          • Thanks for clarifying, that would have been great and the answer had it worked for macOS' find.

            – ylluminate
            Aug 27 '18 at 19:10











          • @ylluminate: To directly and more clearly answer your follow-up question (in the comment above): No, / doesn’t “invert” anything.  ! is the “NOT” operator, inverting the following test.   / is effectively an “OR” operator; find . ! -perm /700 is equivalent to find . ! "(" -perm -400 -o -perm -200 -o -perm -100 ")" — which is equivalent to find . ! -perm -400 ! -perm -200 ! -perm -100, which is directly equivalent to Alexander’s answer.  As Stephen said, / means “any of these bits”.

            – Scott
            Aug 27 '18 at 21:35






          • 1





            @ylluminate, find . ! -perm +700 works with the find on Mac.

            – ilkkachu
            Aug 27 '18 at 21:38


















          1














          If you use sfind or any program using libfind or if you use BSD find, you may use:



          find path -perm +0xxx


          to find files where any of the bits mentioned in the pattern are set, so



          find . ! -perm +0700


          should work in your case. BTW: this is also supported by GNU find.



          Note that this is an extension that is neither mentioned in POSIX nor implemented in a SVr4 based find.






          share|improve this answer























          • Note that it was how GNU find (from 1991 to 2013, deprecated after 2005) used to do it as well, but they replaced it with -perm /0700 for POSIX compliance.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Aug 27 '18 at 15:12











          • Since smake supports this feature using + and since I am very sure that smake is POSIX compliant, as it permits this special enhancement only in case that the + is followed by 0, u, g, o or a, I see no reason for this change.

            – schily
            Aug 27 '18 at 15:20











          • find -perm +u is specified by POSIX (as being the same as -perm 0). It's not clear for -perm +0777, where +0777 could be considered as a non-negative octal number

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Aug 27 '18 at 15:45












          • Sorry, this is not in the POSIX standard. The plus sign is only specified after ugoa or before rwx and similar chars.

            – schily
            Aug 27 '18 at 16:12












          • chmod +u is specified (gives all the same permission as the user, filtered by umask), so find -perm +u is as well. Also note how the find -perm spec makes it explicit that one can't use a perm that starts with - as it would conflict with -perm -mode, but there's no such thing for +.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Aug 27 '18 at 16:16











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "106"
          ;
          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: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          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/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 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%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f465081%2fhow-to-find-all-files-and-folders-with-0-permissions%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes








          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          8














          I'd use something like this:



          find . ! -perm -u=r ! -perm -u=w ! -perm -u=x -ls


          Or if you prefer the octal notation:



          find . ! -perm -400 ! -perm -200 ! -perm -100 -ls


          Unfortunately, no idea, how to take it as one -perm option.



          That syntax above is standard except for the -ls part (common but not POSIX) which you can replace with -exec ls -disl + on systems where find doesn't support -ls to get a similar output.






          share|improve this answer

























          • @Stéphane Chazelas any arguments for use ! instead of -not ? IMHO it generates only problems in scripts, breaking pipes, needs to escape e.t.c.

            – Alexander
            Aug 27 '18 at 14:00






          • 2





            -not is not standard, ! alone is never a problem, it's even the name of a POSIX shell keyword (!) and it's commonly used as argument to the [ / test command in addition to find.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Aug 27 '18 at 14:01
















          8














          I'd use something like this:



          find . ! -perm -u=r ! -perm -u=w ! -perm -u=x -ls


          Or if you prefer the octal notation:



          find . ! -perm -400 ! -perm -200 ! -perm -100 -ls


          Unfortunately, no idea, how to take it as one -perm option.



          That syntax above is standard except for the -ls part (common but not POSIX) which you can replace with -exec ls -disl + on systems where find doesn't support -ls to get a similar output.






          share|improve this answer

























          • @Stéphane Chazelas any arguments for use ! instead of -not ? IMHO it generates only problems in scripts, breaking pipes, needs to escape e.t.c.

            – Alexander
            Aug 27 '18 at 14:00






          • 2





            -not is not standard, ! alone is never a problem, it's even the name of a POSIX shell keyword (!) and it's commonly used as argument to the [ / test command in addition to find.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Aug 27 '18 at 14:01














          8












          8








          8







          I'd use something like this:



          find . ! -perm -u=r ! -perm -u=w ! -perm -u=x -ls


          Or if you prefer the octal notation:



          find . ! -perm -400 ! -perm -200 ! -perm -100 -ls


          Unfortunately, no idea, how to take it as one -perm option.



          That syntax above is standard except for the -ls part (common but not POSIX) which you can replace with -exec ls -disl + on systems where find doesn't support -ls to get a similar output.






          share|improve this answer















          I'd use something like this:



          find . ! -perm -u=r ! -perm -u=w ! -perm -u=x -ls


          Or if you prefer the octal notation:



          find . ! -perm -400 ! -perm -200 ! -perm -100 -ls


          Unfortunately, no idea, how to take it as one -perm option.



          That syntax above is standard except for the -ls part (common but not POSIX) which you can replace with -exec ls -disl + on systems where find doesn't support -ls to get a similar output.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Aug 27 '18 at 21:57









          Stéphane Chazelas

          308k57581939




          308k57581939










          answered Aug 27 '18 at 13:53









          AlexanderAlexander

          1,1611213




          1,1611213












          • @Stéphane Chazelas any arguments for use ! instead of -not ? IMHO it generates only problems in scripts, breaking pipes, needs to escape e.t.c.

            – Alexander
            Aug 27 '18 at 14:00






          • 2





            -not is not standard, ! alone is never a problem, it's even the name of a POSIX shell keyword (!) and it's commonly used as argument to the [ / test command in addition to find.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Aug 27 '18 at 14:01


















          • @Stéphane Chazelas any arguments for use ! instead of -not ? IMHO it generates only problems in scripts, breaking pipes, needs to escape e.t.c.

            – Alexander
            Aug 27 '18 at 14:00






          • 2





            -not is not standard, ! alone is never a problem, it's even the name of a POSIX shell keyword (!) and it's commonly used as argument to the [ / test command in addition to find.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Aug 27 '18 at 14:01

















          @Stéphane Chazelas any arguments for use ! instead of -not ? IMHO it generates only problems in scripts, breaking pipes, needs to escape e.t.c.

          – Alexander
          Aug 27 '18 at 14:00





          @Stéphane Chazelas any arguments for use ! instead of -not ? IMHO it generates only problems in scripts, breaking pipes, needs to escape e.t.c.

          – Alexander
          Aug 27 '18 at 14:00




          2




          2





          -not is not standard, ! alone is never a problem, it's even the name of a POSIX shell keyword (!) and it's commonly used as argument to the [ / test command in addition to find.

          – Stéphane Chazelas
          Aug 27 '18 at 14:01






          -not is not standard, ! alone is never a problem, it's even the name of a POSIX shell keyword (!) and it's commonly used as argument to the [ / test command in addition to find.

          – Stéphane Chazelas
          Aug 27 '18 at 14:01














          7














          With GNU find, you can do this by looking for files which don’t match “any bit set for the owner”:



          find . ! -perm /700


          The same in e.g. FreeBSD find is



          find . ! -perm +700


          Both of these work in the same way. -perm /700 or -perm +700 match if any of the owner permission bits are set; ! negates that, so ! -perm /700 or ! -perm +700 match if none of the owner permission bits are set. The other bits are ignored.






          share|improve this answer

























          • Oh so the / operator inverts the bit of the first one? Ie, if I were looking for group instead would this be applied to the 2nd bit? Just curious now at this point to understand the permission functionality better. Also, just tried on macOS and got the following error when run interactively: find: -perm: /700: illegal mode string

            – ylluminate
            Aug 27 '18 at 13:34







          • 1





            Ah, sorry, -perm / is a GNU extension which matches any of the given permission bits.

            – Stephen Kitt
            Aug 27 '18 at 13:41











          • Thanks for clarifying, that would have been great and the answer had it worked for macOS' find.

            – ylluminate
            Aug 27 '18 at 19:10











          • @ylluminate: To directly and more clearly answer your follow-up question (in the comment above): No, / doesn’t “invert” anything.  ! is the “NOT” operator, inverting the following test.   / is effectively an “OR” operator; find . ! -perm /700 is equivalent to find . ! "(" -perm -400 -o -perm -200 -o -perm -100 ")" — which is equivalent to find . ! -perm -400 ! -perm -200 ! -perm -100, which is directly equivalent to Alexander’s answer.  As Stephen said, / means “any of these bits”.

            – Scott
            Aug 27 '18 at 21:35






          • 1





            @ylluminate, find . ! -perm +700 works with the find on Mac.

            – ilkkachu
            Aug 27 '18 at 21:38















          7














          With GNU find, you can do this by looking for files which don’t match “any bit set for the owner”:



          find . ! -perm /700


          The same in e.g. FreeBSD find is



          find . ! -perm +700


          Both of these work in the same way. -perm /700 or -perm +700 match if any of the owner permission bits are set; ! negates that, so ! -perm /700 or ! -perm +700 match if none of the owner permission bits are set. The other bits are ignored.






          share|improve this answer

























          • Oh so the / operator inverts the bit of the first one? Ie, if I were looking for group instead would this be applied to the 2nd bit? Just curious now at this point to understand the permission functionality better. Also, just tried on macOS and got the following error when run interactively: find: -perm: /700: illegal mode string

            – ylluminate
            Aug 27 '18 at 13:34







          • 1





            Ah, sorry, -perm / is a GNU extension which matches any of the given permission bits.

            – Stephen Kitt
            Aug 27 '18 at 13:41











          • Thanks for clarifying, that would have been great and the answer had it worked for macOS' find.

            – ylluminate
            Aug 27 '18 at 19:10











          • @ylluminate: To directly and more clearly answer your follow-up question (in the comment above): No, / doesn’t “invert” anything.  ! is the “NOT” operator, inverting the following test.   / is effectively an “OR” operator; find . ! -perm /700 is equivalent to find . ! "(" -perm -400 -o -perm -200 -o -perm -100 ")" — which is equivalent to find . ! -perm -400 ! -perm -200 ! -perm -100, which is directly equivalent to Alexander’s answer.  As Stephen said, / means “any of these bits”.

            – Scott
            Aug 27 '18 at 21:35






          • 1





            @ylluminate, find . ! -perm +700 works with the find on Mac.

            – ilkkachu
            Aug 27 '18 at 21:38













          7












          7








          7







          With GNU find, you can do this by looking for files which don’t match “any bit set for the owner”:



          find . ! -perm /700


          The same in e.g. FreeBSD find is



          find . ! -perm +700


          Both of these work in the same way. -perm /700 or -perm +700 match if any of the owner permission bits are set; ! negates that, so ! -perm /700 or ! -perm +700 match if none of the owner permission bits are set. The other bits are ignored.






          share|improve this answer















          With GNU find, you can do this by looking for files which don’t match “any bit set for the owner”:



          find . ! -perm /700


          The same in e.g. FreeBSD find is



          find . ! -perm +700


          Both of these work in the same way. -perm /700 or -perm +700 match if any of the owner permission bits are set; ! negates that, so ! -perm /700 or ! -perm +700 match if none of the owner permission bits are set. The other bits are ignored.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Aug 28 '18 at 6:56

























          answered Aug 27 '18 at 13:29









          Stephen KittStephen Kitt

          174k24398473




          174k24398473












          • Oh so the / operator inverts the bit of the first one? Ie, if I were looking for group instead would this be applied to the 2nd bit? Just curious now at this point to understand the permission functionality better. Also, just tried on macOS and got the following error when run interactively: find: -perm: /700: illegal mode string

            – ylluminate
            Aug 27 '18 at 13:34







          • 1





            Ah, sorry, -perm / is a GNU extension which matches any of the given permission bits.

            – Stephen Kitt
            Aug 27 '18 at 13:41











          • Thanks for clarifying, that would have been great and the answer had it worked for macOS' find.

            – ylluminate
            Aug 27 '18 at 19:10











          • @ylluminate: To directly and more clearly answer your follow-up question (in the comment above): No, / doesn’t “invert” anything.  ! is the “NOT” operator, inverting the following test.   / is effectively an “OR” operator; find . ! -perm /700 is equivalent to find . ! "(" -perm -400 -o -perm -200 -o -perm -100 ")" — which is equivalent to find . ! -perm -400 ! -perm -200 ! -perm -100, which is directly equivalent to Alexander’s answer.  As Stephen said, / means “any of these bits”.

            – Scott
            Aug 27 '18 at 21:35






          • 1





            @ylluminate, find . ! -perm +700 works with the find on Mac.

            – ilkkachu
            Aug 27 '18 at 21:38

















          • Oh so the / operator inverts the bit of the first one? Ie, if I were looking for group instead would this be applied to the 2nd bit? Just curious now at this point to understand the permission functionality better. Also, just tried on macOS and got the following error when run interactively: find: -perm: /700: illegal mode string

            – ylluminate
            Aug 27 '18 at 13:34







          • 1





            Ah, sorry, -perm / is a GNU extension which matches any of the given permission bits.

            – Stephen Kitt
            Aug 27 '18 at 13:41











          • Thanks for clarifying, that would have been great and the answer had it worked for macOS' find.

            – ylluminate
            Aug 27 '18 at 19:10











          • @ylluminate: To directly and more clearly answer your follow-up question (in the comment above): No, / doesn’t “invert” anything.  ! is the “NOT” operator, inverting the following test.   / is effectively an “OR” operator; find . ! -perm /700 is equivalent to find . ! "(" -perm -400 -o -perm -200 -o -perm -100 ")" — which is equivalent to find . ! -perm -400 ! -perm -200 ! -perm -100, which is directly equivalent to Alexander’s answer.  As Stephen said, / means “any of these bits”.

            – Scott
            Aug 27 '18 at 21:35






          • 1





            @ylluminate, find . ! -perm +700 works with the find on Mac.

            – ilkkachu
            Aug 27 '18 at 21:38
















          Oh so the / operator inverts the bit of the first one? Ie, if I were looking for group instead would this be applied to the 2nd bit? Just curious now at this point to understand the permission functionality better. Also, just tried on macOS and got the following error when run interactively: find: -perm: /700: illegal mode string

          – ylluminate
          Aug 27 '18 at 13:34






          Oh so the / operator inverts the bit of the first one? Ie, if I were looking for group instead would this be applied to the 2nd bit? Just curious now at this point to understand the permission functionality better. Also, just tried on macOS and got the following error when run interactively: find: -perm: /700: illegal mode string

          – ylluminate
          Aug 27 '18 at 13:34





          1




          1





          Ah, sorry, -perm / is a GNU extension which matches any of the given permission bits.

          – Stephen Kitt
          Aug 27 '18 at 13:41





          Ah, sorry, -perm / is a GNU extension which matches any of the given permission bits.

          – Stephen Kitt
          Aug 27 '18 at 13:41













          Thanks for clarifying, that would have been great and the answer had it worked for macOS' find.

          – ylluminate
          Aug 27 '18 at 19:10





          Thanks for clarifying, that would have been great and the answer had it worked for macOS' find.

          – ylluminate
          Aug 27 '18 at 19:10













          @ylluminate: To directly and more clearly answer your follow-up question (in the comment above): No, / doesn’t “invert” anything.  ! is the “NOT” operator, inverting the following test.   / is effectively an “OR” operator; find . ! -perm /700 is equivalent to find . ! "(" -perm -400 -o -perm -200 -o -perm -100 ")" — which is equivalent to find . ! -perm -400 ! -perm -200 ! -perm -100, which is directly equivalent to Alexander’s answer.  As Stephen said, / means “any of these bits”.

          – Scott
          Aug 27 '18 at 21:35





          @ylluminate: To directly and more clearly answer your follow-up question (in the comment above): No, / doesn’t “invert” anything.  ! is the “NOT” operator, inverting the following test.   / is effectively an “OR” operator; find . ! -perm /700 is equivalent to find . ! "(" -perm -400 -o -perm -200 -o -perm -100 ")" — which is equivalent to find . ! -perm -400 ! -perm -200 ! -perm -100, which is directly equivalent to Alexander’s answer.  As Stephen said, / means “any of these bits”.

          – Scott
          Aug 27 '18 at 21:35




          1




          1





          @ylluminate, find . ! -perm +700 works with the find on Mac.

          – ilkkachu
          Aug 27 '18 at 21:38





          @ylluminate, find . ! -perm +700 works with the find on Mac.

          – ilkkachu
          Aug 27 '18 at 21:38











          1














          If you use sfind or any program using libfind or if you use BSD find, you may use:



          find path -perm +0xxx


          to find files where any of the bits mentioned in the pattern are set, so



          find . ! -perm +0700


          should work in your case. BTW: this is also supported by GNU find.



          Note that this is an extension that is neither mentioned in POSIX nor implemented in a SVr4 based find.






          share|improve this answer























          • Note that it was how GNU find (from 1991 to 2013, deprecated after 2005) used to do it as well, but they replaced it with -perm /0700 for POSIX compliance.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Aug 27 '18 at 15:12











          • Since smake supports this feature using + and since I am very sure that smake is POSIX compliant, as it permits this special enhancement only in case that the + is followed by 0, u, g, o or a, I see no reason for this change.

            – schily
            Aug 27 '18 at 15:20











          • find -perm +u is specified by POSIX (as being the same as -perm 0). It's not clear for -perm +0777, where +0777 could be considered as a non-negative octal number

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Aug 27 '18 at 15:45












          • Sorry, this is not in the POSIX standard. The plus sign is only specified after ugoa or before rwx and similar chars.

            – schily
            Aug 27 '18 at 16:12












          • chmod +u is specified (gives all the same permission as the user, filtered by umask), so find -perm +u is as well. Also note how the find -perm spec makes it explicit that one can't use a perm that starts with - as it would conflict with -perm -mode, but there's no such thing for +.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Aug 27 '18 at 16:16
















          1














          If you use sfind or any program using libfind or if you use BSD find, you may use:



          find path -perm +0xxx


          to find files where any of the bits mentioned in the pattern are set, so



          find . ! -perm +0700


          should work in your case. BTW: this is also supported by GNU find.



          Note that this is an extension that is neither mentioned in POSIX nor implemented in a SVr4 based find.






          share|improve this answer























          • Note that it was how GNU find (from 1991 to 2013, deprecated after 2005) used to do it as well, but they replaced it with -perm /0700 for POSIX compliance.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Aug 27 '18 at 15:12











          • Since smake supports this feature using + and since I am very sure that smake is POSIX compliant, as it permits this special enhancement only in case that the + is followed by 0, u, g, o or a, I see no reason for this change.

            – schily
            Aug 27 '18 at 15:20











          • find -perm +u is specified by POSIX (as being the same as -perm 0). It's not clear for -perm +0777, where +0777 could be considered as a non-negative octal number

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Aug 27 '18 at 15:45












          • Sorry, this is not in the POSIX standard. The plus sign is only specified after ugoa or before rwx and similar chars.

            – schily
            Aug 27 '18 at 16:12












          • chmod +u is specified (gives all the same permission as the user, filtered by umask), so find -perm +u is as well. Also note how the find -perm spec makes it explicit that one can't use a perm that starts with - as it would conflict with -perm -mode, but there's no such thing for +.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Aug 27 '18 at 16:16














          1












          1








          1







          If you use sfind or any program using libfind or if you use BSD find, you may use:



          find path -perm +0xxx


          to find files where any of the bits mentioned in the pattern are set, so



          find . ! -perm +0700


          should work in your case. BTW: this is also supported by GNU find.



          Note that this is an extension that is neither mentioned in POSIX nor implemented in a SVr4 based find.






          share|improve this answer













          If you use sfind or any program using libfind or if you use BSD find, you may use:



          find path -perm +0xxx


          to find files where any of the bits mentioned in the pattern are set, so



          find . ! -perm +0700


          should work in your case. BTW: this is also supported by GNU find.



          Note that this is an extension that is neither mentioned in POSIX nor implemented in a SVr4 based find.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Aug 27 '18 at 14:11









          schilyschily

          10.8k31641




          10.8k31641












          • Note that it was how GNU find (from 1991 to 2013, deprecated after 2005) used to do it as well, but they replaced it with -perm /0700 for POSIX compliance.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Aug 27 '18 at 15:12











          • Since smake supports this feature using + and since I am very sure that smake is POSIX compliant, as it permits this special enhancement only in case that the + is followed by 0, u, g, o or a, I see no reason for this change.

            – schily
            Aug 27 '18 at 15:20











          • find -perm +u is specified by POSIX (as being the same as -perm 0). It's not clear for -perm +0777, where +0777 could be considered as a non-negative octal number

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Aug 27 '18 at 15:45












          • Sorry, this is not in the POSIX standard. The plus sign is only specified after ugoa or before rwx and similar chars.

            – schily
            Aug 27 '18 at 16:12












          • chmod +u is specified (gives all the same permission as the user, filtered by umask), so find -perm +u is as well. Also note how the find -perm spec makes it explicit that one can't use a perm that starts with - as it would conflict with -perm -mode, but there's no such thing for +.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Aug 27 '18 at 16:16


















          • Note that it was how GNU find (from 1991 to 2013, deprecated after 2005) used to do it as well, but they replaced it with -perm /0700 for POSIX compliance.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Aug 27 '18 at 15:12











          • Since smake supports this feature using + and since I am very sure that smake is POSIX compliant, as it permits this special enhancement only in case that the + is followed by 0, u, g, o or a, I see no reason for this change.

            – schily
            Aug 27 '18 at 15:20











          • find -perm +u is specified by POSIX (as being the same as -perm 0). It's not clear for -perm +0777, where +0777 could be considered as a non-negative octal number

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Aug 27 '18 at 15:45












          • Sorry, this is not in the POSIX standard. The plus sign is only specified after ugoa or before rwx and similar chars.

            – schily
            Aug 27 '18 at 16:12












          • chmod +u is specified (gives all the same permission as the user, filtered by umask), so find -perm +u is as well. Also note how the find -perm spec makes it explicit that one can't use a perm that starts with - as it would conflict with -perm -mode, but there's no such thing for +.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Aug 27 '18 at 16:16

















          Note that it was how GNU find (from 1991 to 2013, deprecated after 2005) used to do it as well, but they replaced it with -perm /0700 for POSIX compliance.

          – Stéphane Chazelas
          Aug 27 '18 at 15:12





          Note that it was how GNU find (from 1991 to 2013, deprecated after 2005) used to do it as well, but they replaced it with -perm /0700 for POSIX compliance.

          – Stéphane Chazelas
          Aug 27 '18 at 15:12













          Since smake supports this feature using + and since I am very sure that smake is POSIX compliant, as it permits this special enhancement only in case that the + is followed by 0, u, g, o or a, I see no reason for this change.

          – schily
          Aug 27 '18 at 15:20





          Since smake supports this feature using + and since I am very sure that smake is POSIX compliant, as it permits this special enhancement only in case that the + is followed by 0, u, g, o or a, I see no reason for this change.

          – schily
          Aug 27 '18 at 15:20













          find -perm +u is specified by POSIX (as being the same as -perm 0). It's not clear for -perm +0777, where +0777 could be considered as a non-negative octal number

          – Stéphane Chazelas
          Aug 27 '18 at 15:45






          find -perm +u is specified by POSIX (as being the same as -perm 0). It's not clear for -perm +0777, where +0777 could be considered as a non-negative octal number

          – Stéphane Chazelas
          Aug 27 '18 at 15:45














          Sorry, this is not in the POSIX standard. The plus sign is only specified after ugoa or before rwx and similar chars.

          – schily
          Aug 27 '18 at 16:12






          Sorry, this is not in the POSIX standard. The plus sign is only specified after ugoa or before rwx and similar chars.

          – schily
          Aug 27 '18 at 16:12














          chmod +u is specified (gives all the same permission as the user, filtered by umask), so find -perm +u is as well. Also note how the find -perm spec makes it explicit that one can't use a perm that starts with - as it would conflict with -perm -mode, but there's no such thing for +.

          – Stéphane Chazelas
          Aug 27 '18 at 16:16






          chmod +u is specified (gives all the same permission as the user, filtered by umask), so find -perm +u is as well. Also note how the find -perm spec makes it explicit that one can't use a perm that starts with - as it would conflict with -perm -mode, but there's no such thing for +.

          – Stéphane Chazelas
          Aug 27 '18 at 16:16


















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!


          • 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%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f465081%2fhow-to-find-all-files-and-folders-with-0-permissions%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

          𛂒𛀶,𛀽𛀑𛂀𛃧𛂓𛀙𛃆𛃑𛃷𛂟𛁡𛀢𛀟𛁤𛂽𛁕𛁪𛂟𛂯,𛁞𛂧𛀴𛁄𛁠𛁼𛂿𛀤 𛂘,𛁺𛂾𛃭𛃭𛃵𛀺,𛂣𛃍𛂖𛃶 𛀸𛃀𛂖𛁶𛁏𛁚 𛂢𛂞 𛁰𛂆𛀔,𛁸𛀽𛁓𛃋𛂇𛃧𛀧𛃣𛂐𛃇,𛂂𛃻𛃲𛁬𛃞𛀧𛃃𛀅 𛂭𛁠𛁡𛃇𛀷𛃓𛁥,𛁙𛁘𛁞𛃸𛁸𛃣𛁜,𛂛,𛃿,𛁯𛂘𛂌𛃛𛁱𛃌𛂈𛂇 𛁊𛃲,𛀕𛃴𛀜 𛀶𛂆𛀶𛃟𛂉𛀣,𛂐𛁞𛁾 𛁷𛂑𛁳𛂯𛀬𛃅,𛃶𛁼

          Crossroads (UK TV series)

          ữḛḳṊẴ ẋ,Ẩṙ,ỹḛẪẠứụỿṞṦ,Ṉẍừ,ứ Ị,Ḵ,ṏ ṇỪḎḰṰọửḊ ṾḨḮữẑỶṑỗḮṣṉẃ Ữẩụ,ṓ,ḹẕḪḫỞṿḭ ỒṱṨẁṋṜ ḅẈ ṉ ứṀḱṑỒḵ,ḏ,ḊḖỹẊ Ẻḷổ,ṥ ẔḲẪụḣể Ṱ ḭỏựẶ Ồ Ṩ,ẂḿṡḾồ ỗṗṡịṞẤḵṽẃ ṸḒẄẘ,ủẞẵṦṟầṓế