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

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP

up vote
3
down vote

favorite

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?

shell permissions find osx

share|improve this question

edited Aug 27 at 13:42

Stephen Kitt

144k22312377

asked Aug 27 at 13:25

ylluminate

26117

add a comment | 

up vote
3
down vote

favorite

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?

shell permissions find osx

share|improve this question

edited Aug 27 at 13:42

Stephen Kitt

144k22312377

asked Aug 27 at 13:25

ylluminate

26117

add a comment | 

up vote
3
down vote

favorite

1

up vote
3
down vote

favorite

1

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?

shell permissions find osx

share|improve this question

edited Aug 27 at 13:42

Stephen Kitt

144k22312377

asked Aug 27 at 13:25

ylluminate

26117

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

edited Aug 27 at 13:42

Stephen Kitt

144k22312377

asked Aug 27 at 13:25

ylluminate

26117

share|improve this question

share|improve this question

edited Aug 27 at 13:42

Stephen Kitt

144k22312377

edited Aug 27 at 13:42

Stephen Kitt

144k22312377

edited Aug 27 at 13:42

Stephen Kitt

144k22312377

144k22312377

asked Aug 27 at 13:25

ylluminate

26117

asked Aug 27 at 13:25

ylluminate

26117

asked Aug 27 at 13:25

ylluminate

26117

26117

add a comment | 

add a comment | 

3 Answers
3

active

oldest

votes

up vote
8
down vote



accepted

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

edited Aug 27 at 21:57

Stéphane Chazelas

283k53521854

answered Aug 27 at 13:53

Alexander

65012

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @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 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 at 14:01
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
7
down vote

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

edited Aug 28 at 6:56

answered Aug 27 at 13:29

Stephen Kitt

144k22312377

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  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 at 13:34
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Ah, sorry, -perm / is a GNU extension which matches any of the given permission bits.
  – Stephen Kitt
  Aug 27 at 13:41
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Thanks for clarifying, that would have been great and the answer had it worked for macOS' find.
  – ylluminate
  Aug 27 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 at 21:35
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @ylluminate, find . ! -perm +700 works with the find on Mac.
  – ilkkachu
  Aug 27 at 21:38
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
1
down vote

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

answered Aug 27 at 14:11

schily

9,53831437

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  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 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 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 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 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 at 16:16
  
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

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',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);

 

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

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

Name Email

3 Answers
3

active

oldest

votes

3 Answers
3

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

up vote
8
down vote



accepted

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

edited Aug 27 at 21:57

Stéphane Chazelas

283k53521854

answered Aug 27 at 13:53

Alexander

65012

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @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 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 at 14:01
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
8
down vote



accepted

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

edited Aug 27 at 21:57

Stéphane Chazelas

283k53521854

answered Aug 27 at 13:53

Alexander

65012

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @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 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 at 14:01
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
8
down vote



accepted

up vote
8
down vote



accepted

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

edited Aug 27 at 21:57

Stéphane Chazelas

283k53521854

answered Aug 27 at 13:53

Alexander

65012

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

edited Aug 27 at 21:57

Stéphane Chazelas

283k53521854

answered Aug 27 at 13:53

Alexander

65012

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

edited Aug 27 at 21:57

Stéphane Chazelas

283k53521854

edited Aug 27 at 21:57

Stéphane Chazelas

283k53521854

edited Aug 27 at 21:57

Stéphane Chazelas

283k53521854

283k53521854

answered Aug 27 at 13:53

Alexander

65012

answered Aug 27 at 13:53

Alexander

65012

answered Aug 27 at 13:53

Alexander

65012

65012

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @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 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 at 14:01
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @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 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 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 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 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 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 at 14:01

add a comment | 

up vote
7
down vote

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

edited Aug 28 at 6:56

answered Aug 27 at 13:29

Stephen Kitt

144k22312377

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  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 at 13:34
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Ah, sorry, -perm / is a GNU extension which matches any of the given permission bits.
  – Stephen Kitt
  Aug 27 at 13:41
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Thanks for clarifying, that would have been great and the answer had it worked for macOS' find.
  – ylluminate
  Aug 27 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 at 21:35
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @ylluminate, find . ! -perm +700 works with the find on Mac.
  – ilkkachu
  Aug 27 at 21:38
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
7
down vote

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

edited Aug 28 at 6:56

answered Aug 27 at 13:29

Stephen Kitt

144k22312377

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  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 at 13:34
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Ah, sorry, -perm / is a GNU extension which matches any of the given permission bits.
  – Stephen Kitt
  Aug 27 at 13:41
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Thanks for clarifying, that would have been great and the answer had it worked for macOS' find.
  – ylluminate
  Aug 27 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 at 21:35
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @ylluminate, find . ! -perm +700 works with the find on Mac.
  – ilkkachu
  Aug 27 at 21:38
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
7
down vote

up vote
7
down vote

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

edited Aug 28 at 6:56

answered Aug 27 at 13:29

Stephen Kitt

144k22312377

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

edited Aug 28 at 6:56

answered Aug 27 at 13:29

Stephen Kitt

144k22312377

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

edited Aug 28 at 6:56

edited Aug 28 at 6:56

edited Aug 28 at 6:56

answered Aug 27 at 13:29

Stephen Kitt

144k22312377

answered Aug 27 at 13:29

Stephen Kitt

144k22312377

answered Aug 27 at 13:29

Stephen Kitt

144k22312377

144k22312377

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  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 at 13:34
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Ah, sorry, -perm / is a GNU extension which matches any of the given permission bits.
  – Stephen Kitt
  Aug 27 at 13:41
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Thanks for clarifying, that would have been great and the answer had it worked for macOS' find.
  – ylluminate
  Aug 27 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 at 21:35
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @ylluminate, find . ! -perm +700 works with the find on Mac.
  – ilkkachu
  Aug 27 at 21:38
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  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 at 13:34
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Ah, sorry, -perm / is a GNU extension which matches any of the given permission bits.
  – Stephen Kitt
  Aug 27 at 13:41
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Thanks for clarifying, that would have been great and the answer had it worked for macOS' find.
  – ylluminate
  Aug 27 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 at 21:35
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @ylluminate, find . ! -perm +700 works with the find on Mac.
  – ilkkachu
  Aug 27 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 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 at 13:34

1

1

Ah, sorry, -perm / is a GNU extension which matches any of the given permission bits.
– Stephen Kitt
Aug 27 at 13:41

Ah, sorry, -perm / is a GNU extension which matches any of the given permission bits.
– Stephen Kitt
Aug 27 at 13:41

Thanks for clarifying, that would have been great and the answer had it worked for macOS' find.
– ylluminate
Aug 27 at 19:10

Thanks for clarifying, that would have been great and the answer had it worked for macOS' find.
– ylluminate
Aug 27 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 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 at 21:35

1

1

@ylluminate, find . ! -perm +700 works with the find on Mac.
– ilkkachu
Aug 27 at 21:38

@ylluminate, find . ! -perm +700 works with the find on Mac.
– ilkkachu
Aug 27 at 21:38

add a comment | 

up vote
1
down vote

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

answered Aug 27 at 14:11

schily

9,53831437

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  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 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 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 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 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 at 16:16
  
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

up vote
1
down vote

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

answered Aug 27 at 14:11

schily

9,53831437

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  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 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 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 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 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 at 16:16
  
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

up vote
1
down vote

up vote
1
down vote

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

answered Aug 27 at 14:11

schily

9,53831437

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

answered Aug 27 at 14:11

schily

9,53831437

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 27 at 14:11

schily

9,53831437

answered Aug 27 at 14:11

schily

9,53831437

answered Aug 27 at 14:11

schily

9,53831437

9,53831437

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  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 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 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 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 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 at 16:16
  
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 at 16:16

 | 
show 3 more comments

 

draft saved

draft discarded

 

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

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

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Name Email

Name

Email

Name Email

Name

Email