Webserver - correct owner and permissions

Hi
Seem to have got hacked by a "Turkish Hacker". Must have changed my ownership and permissions on the folder containing the website.
What is correct ownership and permissions I should apply to the folder? Am using BareBones SuperGetInfo to process this.

And by permissions, I mean Read / Write / Execute for each of Owner / Group / World (rather than 775 or whatever)

Similar Messages

10-local.rules not setting correct group and permissions

I have a custom rule for one of my removable storage devices. The rule sets the correct symlink, but it doesn't honour the mode and group settings. Here's the rule.
BUS=="scsi", SYSFS{vendor}=="IIT-22 ", KERNEL=="sd?1", MODE="0666", GROUP="datamode" SYMLINK="mymp3"
The group exists in /etc/group and the users who need access to the device are appropriately listed.
udev has always been mu Nemesis, and I'd love to get this sorted!
ls -l /dev/mymp3
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 2010-02-07 13:03 /dev/mymp3 -> sdb1
[hierro@el-diablo]#
]ls -l /dev/sdb1
brw-rw-rw- 1 root storage 8, 17 2010-02-07 13:03 /dev/sdb1
[hierro@el-diablo]#
Any advice?
Cheers
GregW

Hey brebs
brebs wrote:10 is too low a number for the filename. Use e.g. 91, because one of the standard rules files is overruling it (e.g. 50-blah.rules)..
Thanks for the reply. I always thought that the lower numbered rules too precedent..... I should read the wiki more. I'll try this when I get home.
Cheers
GregW

Owner and group have been switched to unknown.

I have a server 10.4.9 running on an Intel XServe.
Lately some of the folders have been changed from the correct owner and group "staff" to owner and group "unknown".
Strangely enough when a user logs on to the server from a client machines and views the permissions on the folders they are all owned by the name that logged in and to group staff. Other folders are simply shown with the permissions they were created under.
Is this normal?
Is "unknown" some kind of feature to allow users to see files and folder as if they were owned by the users login name.
Could someone please explain this to me or point me to some reading material regarding this. If it is found in the manuals please tell me the approximate location.
TIA
Hans

If I were to guess, I'd say someone turned on "Ignore ownership on this volume". Select the volume in question and Get Info, then see the check box at the very bottom of the properties window.

Making Everyone The Owner and Giving Owner Full Permission Isn't Sufficient

I recently installed Windows 2012 R2 on top of Windows 2012 R2 to get rid of all the accumulated Windows Updates and to make sure the Registry does not contain inconsistencies that may have resulted from helping Microsoft Support research the inability of
Hyper-V to create a Virtual Switch. Some opine the problem is with the driver for the physical network adapter(s) failing to play nice with Hyper-V. Hyper-V complains of an "internal error." Anyway, this reset of the OS produced a folder named C:\Windows.old
that I want to get rid of because it occupies space better suited to other purposes. Well. This turns out to be a non-trivial task because various folders inside C:\Windows.old have strange and exotic owners and permissions. My purpose here is to expose the
problem and see whether there is a workaround (someone suggested taking ownership of the root directory and all its descendants, but that is really, really a last resort) for what is obviously a serious logical defect in Windows 2012 R2. A principle
of design adhered to religiously in Windows is that, when all else fails, deny access.
MARK D ROCKMAN

I recently installed Windows 2012 R2 on top of Windows 2012 R2 to get rid of all the accumulated Windows Updates and to make sure the Registry does not contain inconsistencies that may have resulted from helping Microsoft Support research the inability of
Hyper-V to create a Virtual Switch. Some opine the problem is with the driver for the physical network adapter(s) failing to play nice with Hyper-V. Hyper-V complains of an "internal error." Anyway, this reset of the OS produced a folder named C:\Windows.old
that I want to get rid of because it occupies space better suited to other purposes. Well. This turns out to be a non-trivial task because various folders inside C:\Windows.old have strange and exotic owners and permissions. My purpose here is to expose the
problem and see whether there is a workaround (someone suggested taking ownership of the root directory and all its descendants, but that is really, really a last resort) for what is obviously a serious logical defect in Windows 2012 R2. A principle
of design adhered to religiously in Windows is that, when all else fails, deny access.
MARK D ROCKMAN
installing an os on top of an existing installation is full of problems
better to backup and wipe the disk and start fresh
next time use virtual machines which can more safely handle workloads
hyper-v is free, i find it useful, and it has been very popular for many shops
Place your rig specifics into your signature like I have, makes it 100x easier!
Hardcore Games Legendary is the Only Way to Play!
Vegan Advocate How can you be an environmentalist and still eat meat?

When I repair disk permissions I get the following:Repairing permissions for "MacIntosh HD" Determining correct file permissions. Permissions differ on ./Library/Widgets, should be drwxr-xr-x , they are drwxrwxr-x Owner and group corrected on ./Library/W

Repairing permissions for “MacIntosh HD”
Determining correct file permissions.
Permissions differ on ./Library/Widgets, should be drwxr-xr-x , they are drwxrwxr-x
Owner and group corrected on ./Library/Widgets
Permissions corrected on ./Library/Widgets
Permissions differ on ./System/Library/User Template, should be drwx------ , they are drwxr-xr-x
Owner and group corrected on ./System/Library/User Template
Permissions corrected on ./System/Library/User Template
Group differs on ./usr/bin/fetchmail, should be 0, group is 6
Permissions differ on ./usr/bin/fetchmail, should be -rwxr-xr-x , they are -rwxr-sr-x
Owner and group corrected on ./usr/bin/fetchmail
Permissions corrected on ./usr/bin/fetchmail
Permissions differ on ./usr/lib/php/build/Makefile.global, should be -r--r--r-- , they are -r-xr-xr-x
Owner and group corrected on ./usr/lib/php/build/Makefile.global
Permissions corrected on ./usr/lib/php/build/Makefile.global
Permissions differ on ./usr/lib/php/build/acinclude.m4, should be -r--r--r-- , they are -r-xr-xr-x
Owner and group corrected on ./usr/lib/php/build/acinclude.m4
Permissions corrected on ./usr/lib/php/build/acinclude.m4
Permissions differ on ./usr/lib/php/build/mkdep.awk, should be -r--r--r-- , they are -r-xr-xr-x
Owner and group corrected on ./usr/lib/php/build/mkdep.awk
Permissions corrected on ./usr/lib/php/build/mkdep.awk
Permissions differ on ./usr/lib/php/build/phpize.m4, should be -r--r--r-- , they are -r-xr-xr-x
Owner and group corrected on ./usr/lib/php/build/phpize.m4
Permissions corrected on ./usr/lib/php/build/phpize.m4
Permissions differ on ./usr/lib/php/build/scan_makefile_in.awk, should be -r--r--r-- , they are -r-xr-xr-x
Owner and group corrected on ./usr/lib/php/build/scan_makefile_in.awk
Permissions corrected on ./usr/lib/php/build/scan_makefile_in.awk
Permissions differ on ./usr/lib/system/libmathCommon.A.dylib, should be -r-xr-xr-x , they are -rwxr-xr-x
Owner and group corrected on ./usr/lib/system/libmathCommon.A.dylib
Permissions corrected on ./usr/lib/system/libmathCommon.A.dylib
Permissions differ on ./usr/libexec/dumpemacs, should be -r-sr-xr-x , they are -r-xr-xr-x
Owner and group corrected on ./usr/libexec/dumpemacs
Permissions corrected on ./usr/libexec/dumpemacs
Permissions repair complete
The privileges have been verified or repaired on the selected volume
Then I sometimes get the brown screen that states,You must re-start your computer.
I have already zeroed out the hard drive and re-installed Panther and the upgrade Tiger disc.
I repair permissions using the Tiger disc upgrade.
Can anyone help me with this??

> I repair permissions using the Tiger disc upgrade.
One thing to note... When running Repair Disk Permissions, it is best to run it while started up normally, from your normal startup disk, not from a Mac OS X installation disc. The only time you should run it while started up from an installation disc is if some problem is preventing you from starting up normally. OTOH, Repair Disk can only be used when starting up from a different disk (such as an installation disc).
So, I would start up normally, run Disk Utility, and use Repair Disk Permissions on your normal startup disk.
NOTE: Repair Disk Permissions often gives alerts messages that can be ignored. They are more "informational," not serious errors.
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS1448
You should still run it periodically. When you run it, what needs to be repaired has been repaired; consider the rest of it an FYI. I've never experience a problem, where a Repair Disk Permissions message actually caused a problem. But, if you ever get an error while running Repair Disk (or Verify Disk), that is usually a serious problem.

Please Help, After Kernel panic restart failed- apple swirl(6 hrs), SafeMode-failed, SUMode-sucess. Could not unmount disk to erase. Repair permissions-multiple fail errors:unable to set permissions on... unable to set owner and group...

Please Help, I deleted an account that was the same name as the administrator but was not the administrator. Also a samsung galaxy s phone was charging through the usb port.
I closed out a program and got a message that the temp file could not be stored/saved.
Then a Kernel panic message occurred and restart was necessary.
The restart resulted in the screen with the apple logo and a continous swirl for 6+hrs,
Attempted Safe Mode start up, unsuccessful,
Single User Mode-sucess.
Ran $ fsck_hfs -rfd /dev/disk0s2 Ran several times repairs made with one which remained. something about a node.
No change in start up attempts
Started with install CD matching current OS 10.6
Ran Disk Utility Repair Permissions resulting in multiple errors:
One line/error
Warning: SUID file /////Ardagent has been modified and will not be repaired
144 lines/errors of this type of series of lines
Group permissions differ on...should be drwxr-xr-x, they are -rw-r--r-- .
permissions differ on...should be drwxr-xr-x, they are -rw-r--r-- .
unable to set owner and group...error 22: Invalid Argument
unable to set permissions on...error 22: Invalid Argument
Ran Repair Disk, result:
Error: Could not unmount disk (in red)
Ran Verify Disk, result:
The volume HD appears to be ok (in green)
Next I attempted to erase the dist to start from scratch since I have data backed up on time machine.
Error message box
Volume Erase failed
Volume Erase failed with error:
Could not unmount disk
I am looking to solve without buying DiskWarrior unless only resort.

So it looks like solved it for now I will update later. What I did was after starting from the install cd for the 10.6 system I ran from terminal ran:
diskutil disablejournaling /dev/disk0s2
diskutil disableownership /dev/disk0s2
diskutil repairPermissions /dev/disk0s2
then i closed terminal and then when to disk utility and chose to repair disk with results all was fine. Then ran repair permissions and got similar results from terminal function next I erased disk and then chose to restore from time machine and it is now restoring! yea!

Why Can't VZ do the Right Thing For Once and Permit Network Extender Owners to Close their Networks?

Given the fact that the Network Extender can be set for managed access or open access, clearly it can technologically be configured so that a closed network could be set up so that ONLY those users that are included in the "priority list" could access the Network Extender.
If I had to guess, Verizon, prefers to benefit from your internet connection and your investment in a network extender by bolstering their network in poor reception areas for all of their customers in the vicinity on us Network Extender owners' backs rather than to do the right thing and permit a customer who has paid for the device as well as their internet access to close the network.
I find this sleazy and hope VZW will rethink its approach to this. We who subscribe to VZW for our cellular service pay the highest rates, on average, in the country for cell service. We have also paid hundreds of dollars for the Network Extender, and pay for the internet that is used to facilitate the phone calls made through the network extender.
Once it a while it would be nice if VZW did the right thing for its customers and not blatantly, at least, put their corporate greed about the needs of their customers.

I called Verizon tech support, and was informed that there is an option to close the Network Extender. This would allow only numbers on the white list to connect to the extender. Is the information I received incorrect? I spoke to them just the other day. Have you tried to configure the extender recently?
My post asking for clarification is here: https://community.verizonwireless.com/message/1002928#1002928
Thanks for any information you can provide.

Get Permissions yields always 511 or 365 and owner and group null

Dear users,
I am trying to solve a write permission problem on a NTFS (Windows2003) server and on my local computer. There are various folders on the server, for which I do or do not have write permissions. Using "Get Permissions" I am trying to decide, whether I am allowed to write there some data or not -- to avoid any error message. Running Get Permissions on both kinds of folders yields "511", which means. I do have a write permission (right?). There is no difference, between the two results, but in practice writing into one of these folders results in error.
Experiment: I created a folder locally, for which I removed all of my permissions. Currently I cannot open, write, or delete this folder. But Get Permissions still says that the folder has 511 permissions, i.e., write permissions for the executing user. Why? What could go wrong? What am I seeing wrong?
Kind regards,
p.s. the owner and the group are NULL ("", empty string) says Get Permissions, too. That is not also not awaited.

Hi,
it seems like the VI is not as powerful as you want it to. The help to "Setting Permissions" states:
...This structure is based on the Linux permission bits that govern read, write, and execute permissions for users, groups, and others.
(Windows) Use of the permissions parameter is very limited on non-Linux operating systems. You can use permissions to change only write permissions for users (bit 7); the operating system ignores all other changes to the bits....
I hope this information helps.
Kind regards
Heinz

Unable to download from AppStore, updates,etc.Messages 'the installer is damaged' to 'there might be a problem with file ownership and permissions.' I am the owner and only user of a new MBP. What could be going on?

Is anyone having the same type of problems I'm having with Lion. I have a new MacBook Pro, received 7 weeks ago, preinstalled with Leopard 10.6.7. I didn't migrate anything from my old iMac, wanted a clean install from the Apple Store. While there, I asked for the upgrade to Lion 10.7, however their system was down.
I installed it myself, wirelessly about a week later, and Apple emailed me a receipt. Now, I've had to call support directly last week when I lost Mail, Address Book, was unable to open Preview or iTunes, among other problems. Seemed fixed after a session that baffled even the store tech. Now I am unable to download or install the recent Mac updates for Lion, from the App Store, could not install Adobe Reader, etc. Messages range from 'A network error has occured - Check your Internet connection and try again' to 'The Installer is damaged and cannot open the package. There may be a problem with file ownership or permissions.' All fail and I'll probably have to call Apple again. I am frustrated beyond words. Logs 'Install's runner tool is not properly configured as a setuid tool', domain errors, 'attempt to write a readonly database, and on and on. I have barely done a thing on this computer except search online for help with these problems. Safari gives me a 'You are not connected to the internet' too often. Diagnostics disagrees. I do see wi-fi problems in the forum. Disk and permissions were fine at the beginning of the earlier problems, checked first by support tech. I'm not sure if support tech even knew. I was just happy they were fixed. Anyone have these download and/or install problems after a 'clean bill of health' so to speak, only a week ago?

Let's try the following user tip with that one:
"There is a problem with this Windows Installer package ..." error messages when installing iTunes for Windows

I a owner and administrator. I can't change any file permissions. Help tells me to 'get info' on a file, them click on the lock icon to enter password. The lock icon is not present on any files I 'get info' on. How can I change permissions

I attached an external drive to my macbook pro for backup purposes. I found that the device is 'read only' for me. I read that I could change permissions by selecting 'get info' for a item and clicking the lock icon to submit my password. The lock icon is not displayed on any 'info' window for any file on my macbook, much less the attached drive. I am the only user and administrator as far as I know. What steps can I take to change permissions? Thanks. My 1st post.

How can I tell? The 'get info' window has no lock and under sharing and permissions, on says 'you can only read'. I did a get info on the Macintosh HD and it had a lock on it but said I could only read, for what that it worth.

Made myself owner of sharing and permissions now nothing works.

I will concede that this was stupid but I needed to save a file and no permission changes to folders or the file itself would let me! So I made myself owner of my HD, instead of 'system' being the owner, and now all of my extensions fail and I can't open various applications.
I tried to revert but that didn't work, and I can't unmake myself the owner or make system the owner again.
Please help!

Or boot into single user mode, Cmd-S at the startup chime. This will give you a text only screen. At the prompt:
1) Type mount -uw / and press return
2) Type chmod 775 /Volumes/"Macintosh HD" and press return
3) Type reboot and press return
Note, if you renamed your hard drive, substitute the new name for "Macintosh HD". If the new name has spaces, like Macintosh HD, put the name in quotes. If no spaces in the name, quotes are not necessary.
Copy/paste these commands, as typos or wrong spaces will make them unworkable.

Directory Access and Permissions

Hi,
I work at a company that's having a problem setting up the new macs (Core 2 Duo iMac 24") our marketing department just ordered.
The rest of our network uses windows, so we have active directory logins for everyone. We've setup the Directory Access on the new iMacs so that marketing users log in using their AD username and pw. The local user account that 10.4 generates is set to be a local admin, but the users are just normal users in AD.
The problem we're having is with setting permissions for some Apps that require changes from the default settings. When I go to set permissions in the Info pane of a folder or app, I open the pull down menu for 'Owner' and go to 'Other...' at the bottom to grab the user from AD (because the user is not available in the top portion where local users can normally be selected). This is where the problem occurs. This opens up the "User Listing" box, which contains a long list of AD usernames, but does not have any AD usernames that were created less than 10 months ago. I checked with my Network Admin, and virtually no settings in terms of creating AD users have changed in the last two years.
I don't know if this is a problem with settings on the AD side or the Mac side, but here's the Mac settings in Directory Access:
+Services: AD is checked+
+Authentication: Custom path selected, our domain is in the list+
+Contacts: Same as Authentication+
+Under AD:+
+Forest and Domain are correct, computer is bound correctly.+
+User Experience:+
+Create mobile account is not selected.+
+Force local home directory on startup is selected.+
+Use UNC path from AD... is selected, smb: is selected as Network protocol.+
+Default user shell is selected as '/bin/bash'+
+Mappings: Nothing selected.+
Administrative:
+Prefer this domain server is checked and correct for our network+
+Allow administration by is checked, domain admins and enterprise admins+
+Allow authentication from any domain in the forest is selected+
Is there anything in these settings that might cause the problem described above, or is the problem something else entirely, maybe on the AD side?
I'm also wondering if anyone knows how to find out where Directory Access is grabbing this list of users from. Perhaps our Network Admin can find out what the problem is given that info.
Thanks,
Gabe
Message was edited by: Gabe Stein

I have exactly the same problem and ProtectHome wasn't the solution. "sudo minidlnad" works fine -- TV shows root and /home/blah/blah is accessible. However, I'm not able to make the daemon run as root. Just for testing purposes, I've made all the settings as loose as possible, but TV stills shows minidlna as username and the folder is not available (systemctl status reveals permission denied).
minidlna.service:
[Unit]
Description=minidlna server
After=network.target
[Service]
Type=simple
User=root
Group=root
ExecStart=/usr/bin/minidlnad -S
ProtectSystem=off
ProtectHome=off
PrivateDevices=on
NoNewPrivileges=off
[Install]
WantedBy=multi-user.target
minidlna.conf:
user=root
media_dir=/home/blah/blah
What am I missing here? No possibility to run minidlna as root after the last update any more?
Edit:
Never mind. During all this testing I had forgotten "User=minidlna" to /etc/systemd/system/minidlna.service.d/override.conf. Daemon as root works after removing that line.
Last edited by riivo (2015-03-19 14:38:18)

Snow Leopard Finder's Get Info fails to show Owner and Group for some files or folders which reside on a Shared Volume, hosted by G5 Server w/ OS 10.4 - why?

Frustrations with file permissions abound, as certain co workers are unable to manually determine their level of permission or who to ask to make changes to files and folders belonging to others. Users of Snow Leopard desktop OS get unhelpful feedback via Finder's Get Info, seeing only the permissions listed for "Everyone" and a statement that "You have custom access". The custom message exists, presumably, because ACL's are employed on the shared volume in an attempt to give managerial control over these volumes to specific users, even if all users can create files and folders on those volumes.
Shared volumes are partitions of an external RAID which are set up as sharepoints on a G5 tower running Server 10.4. Other persons in the office, using machines that are running desktop OS 10.5, can correctly see the assigned Owner and Group permissions (although the "custom access" still shows). This at least lets the 10.5 user know who created a given file or folder, so that they can resolve permissions-restricted issues if they come up (i.e. User A wants to delete file X, but as it was created by User B, A must contact B and have them delete it. In 10.6 it appears that A cannot determine who B is).
I know that ACL's are functioning (enabled on the drive) since we have been making use of ACL-granted write privileges for quite a while (and the custom access seems to be evidence too).
An error I encountered, pertaining to this, is that I used a 10.6 machine to create a working folder, then generated and saved several files in this location. Expected permissions thus would be Owner = me (i.e. the user I was logged in as), R/W, Group = staff, R only, Everyone = R only. However, immediately the permissions shown in Finder / Get Info consisted only of Everyone = R only, with no entry for Owner or Group. Moreover, clicking + to add either an Owner or a Group resulted in error message that I had entered an invalid user or group, even though I typed in correct info (such as trying to add "staff" as a group).

Frustrations with file permissions abound, as certain co workers are unable to manually determine their level of permission or who to ask to make changes to files and folders belonging to others. Users of Snow Leopard desktop OS get unhelpful feedback via Finder's Get Info, seeing only the permissions listed for "Everyone" and a statement that "You have custom access". The custom message exists, presumably, because ACL's are employed on the shared volume in an attempt to give managerial control over these volumes to specific users, even if all users can create files and folders on those volumes.
Shared volumes are partitions of an external RAID which are set up as sharepoints on a G5 tower running Server 10.4. Other persons in the office, using machines that are running desktop OS 10.5, can correctly see the assigned Owner and Group permissions (although the "custom access" still shows). This at least lets the 10.5 user know who created a given file or folder, so that they can resolve permissions-restricted issues if they come up (i.e. User A wants to delete file X, but as it was created by User B, A must contact B and have them delete it. In 10.6 it appears that A cannot determine who B is).
I know that ACL's are functioning (enabled on the drive) since we have been making use of ACL-granted write privileges for quite a while (and the custom access seems to be evidence too).
An error I encountered, pertaining to this, is that I used a 10.6 machine to create a working folder, then generated and saved several files in this location. Expected permissions thus would be Owner = me (i.e. the user I was logged in as), R/W, Group = staff, R only, Everyone = R only. However, immediately the permissions shown in Finder / Get Info consisted only of Everyone = R only, with no entry for Owner or Group. Moreover, clicking + to add either an Owner or a Group resulted in error message that I had entered an invalid user or group, even though I typed in correct info (such as trying to add "staff" as a group).

ACL does not correctly order the permissions when they are updated

Outlook Connector sjab32.dll 7.1.228.0 sjms32.dll 7.1.228.0 sjui32.dll 7.1.228.0 sjtp32.dll 7.1.228.0
Problem: We have identifed an issue with editing calendar permissions using the Outlook Connector. Basically the calendar ACEs are evaluated on a first match basic. Outlook Connector does not correctly order the permissions when they are updated. A brief example is below. Editing permissions via UWC works fine and will in fact fix any out of order ACE entries.
Basic calendar permission:
1.aces=@@o^a^rsf^g;@@o^p^rw^g;@@o^c^wdeic^g;@^a^sf^g;@^c^^g;@^p^r^g^
after adding user mab, Ace has now been re-ordered so that the everyone permissions are now before the owner permissions:
2.aces=mab^p^r^g;mab^c^rwd^g;mab^a^rsf^g;@^c^rwd^d;@^c^^g;@^p^r^g;@^a^sf^g;@@o^c^wdeic^g;@@o^p^rw^g;@@o^a^rsf^g
any suggestion as to why this re-ordering is happening when updated through OC and any supporting doucuments for ACL

Hi,
This issue is most likely related to bug #6471869 (Outlook Connector allows invites to users with restricted permissions). This has been fixed in the latest Outlook Connector 7.1_233 (aka 122018-09). I recommend logging a Sun support case to get a copy of this new release.
Regards,
Shane.

What is the right owner and permission for 11.2.0.2 $GRID_HOME?

Gurus:
I recently installed an oracle 11.2.0.2 grid infrastructure.
I found that the grid home directory /u00/app/11.2.0/grid has the following owner and permission. I am wondering if they are right or not. I used "oracle" to install both my grid infrastructure and database software.
Should the grid home directory /u00/app/11.2.0/grid be owned by oracle:oinstall or root:oinstall
Should the grid home directory /u00/app/11.2.0/grid permission be 750 or something else?
Please advise.
Here is my current owner and permission for my grid home directory /u00/app/11.2.0/grid:
ddiaalogaml6:/u00/app/11.2.0 > ll
total 4
drwxr-x--- 67 root oinstall 4096 Oct 31 14:30 grid
Thanks a lot.

For correct settings see the installation guide:
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E11882_01/install.112/e22489/prelinux.htm#BABIIJGD
Quote:
A Grid home /u01/app/11.2.0/grid owned by grid:oinstall with 775 (drwxdrwxr-x) permissions. These permissions are required for installation, and are changed during the installation process to root:oinstall with 755 permissions (drwxr-xr-x).
Edited by: oradba on 04.11.2011 16:25

Webserver - correct owner and permissions

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for