How do I set up Transmission permissions?

[Chris230291]

Hello. I have recently had to reinstall Transmission. Previous to the install I had it running perfectly, but now I cant seem to get it running correctly. I have tried to set it up the same way I had it before, but it was a long time ago so I have likely made a mistake somewhere. Hopefully someone can see where I'm going wrong.

I have users "Chris" (1001), "Transmission" (1001) and both are in a group called "Chris" (1001).
My "Downloads" dataset has the permissions set to "Chris" (owner) and "Chris" (group).
I created a Jail called "Transmission" and uploaded the plugin(2.82) to it.
I add storage to it linking /usr/Downloads in my Jail to my "Downloads" dataset.
I run "chown 1001:transmission /usr/Downloads", then "chmod 775 /usr/Downloads"
I then configure the plugin, pointing it at the storage/mount points etc and enable the plugin.
I can then add a torrent and it will download successfully. However when I try to rename/cut etc the download in Windows Explorer (CIFS share) I am told "You need permission to preform this action".

I never had this problem before, does anyone know why I cant modify my downloaded file from my CIFS share?

Thanks,
Chris.

 

[Joshua Parker Ruehlig]

Theres an option 'umask' in the transmission settings file '/usr/pbi/transmission-amd64/etc/transmission/home/settings.json'. Setting this to '0' tell transmission to make the files with 777 permissions (world readable/writable).

 

[Chris230291]

Theres an option 'umask' in the transmission settings file '/usr/pbi/transmission-amd64/etc/transmission/home/settings.json'. Setting this to '0' tell transmission to make the files with 777 permissions (world readable/writable).

Thanks for the reply.
Is that safe though? I definitely didn't do that before. Is that the best way of doing it?

Chris.

 

[Joshua Parker Ruehlig]

Thanks for the reply.
Is that safe though? I definitely didn't do that before. Is that the best way of doing it?

Chris.

I don't see an issue with it. I secure my files at the share/application level. people aren't getting shell access on my box. these are my downloads (not private) and I take regular snapshots.

also know enough to match users for different plugins so I actually don't even need to do this. matching users is the better way to do this. I cover how to do this on my blog explaining my setup.

 

[Chris230291]

I don't see an issue with it. I secure my files at the share/application level. people aren't getting shell access on my box. these are my downloads (not private) and I take regular snapshots.

also know enough to match users for different plugins so I actually don't even need to do this. matching users is the better way to do this. I cover how to do this on my blog explaining my setup.

Ok so as long as my shares are password protected etc there isn't an issue?
What would be the issues with using 777? I read it was unsecure, but with no explanation as to why.

I will read up on what matching users is and does.

Thanks,
Chris.

 

[Joshua Parker Ruehlig]

Ok so as long as my shares are password protected etc there isn't an issue?
What would be the issues with using 777? I read it was unsecure, but with no explanation as to why.

I will read up on what matching users is and does.

Thanks,
Chris.

777 is insecure because it allows any user to write to files. for them to even do this they beef to access the filesystem either through a share (nfs/cifs) or by getting a shell account. you can password protect or limit shares to certain IPs/networks. that's how I prefer to secure my files but different use cases may lead to a different method.

 

[Chris230291]

Ok thank you that makes sense.
Could I get a link to your blog please?

Chris.

 

[Joshua Parker Ruehlig]

Ok thank you that makes sense.
Could I get a link to your blog please?

Chris.

I'd rather not link to it. just search for 'jruehlig freenas'