From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 05:28:51 1996 Return-Path: owner-chat Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id FAA05658 for chat-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 05:28:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (mail.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.17.13]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA05646 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 05:28:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from campa.panke.de (anonymous234.ppp.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.17.234]) by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA04258; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 14:04:42 +0200 Received: (from wosch@localhost) by campa.panke.de (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA00775; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 13:29:13 +0200 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 13:29:13 +0200 From: Wolfram Schneider Message-Id: <199608291129.NAA00775@campa.panke.de> To: "Francisco Reyes" Cc: "FreeBSd Chat list" Subject: Why no umask in dot-profile? In-Reply-To: <199608290233.CAA27097@pop01.ny.us.ibm.net> References: <199608290233.CAA27097@pop01.ny.us.ibm.net> Reply-to: Wolfram Schneider MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-chat@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Francisco Reyes writes: >I was looking at the the "dot" which are used as the basis for the >files which get copied when a new user is created and noticed that >the "dot-profile" did not have umask. Isn't this an advisable >security measure? The default umask is 022. No risk. /usr/include/sys/param.h: #define CMASK 022 /* default file mask: S_IWGRP|S_IWOTH */ man 2 umask The default mask value is S_IWGRP|S_IWOTH (022, write access for the own- er only). Child processes inherit the mask of the calling process. Wolfram