From owner-freebsd-arch Sun May 19 16:16:27 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from Awfulhak.org (gw.Awfulhak.org [217.204.245.18]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9345D37B405; Sun, 19 May 2002 16:16:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (root@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org [IPv6:fec0::1:12]) by Awfulhak.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g4JNGIva074503; Mon, 20 May 2002 00:16:18 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from brian@Awfulhak.org) Received: from hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (brian@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g4JNGFDV007627; Mon, 20 May 2002 00:16:15 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from brian@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org) Message-Id: <200205192316.g4JNGFDV007627@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Marcel Moolenaar Cc: "Crist J. Clark" , Brian Somers , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Restricting umasks in periodic scripts In-Reply-To: Message from Marcel Moolenaar of "Sun, 19 May 2002 13:29:25 PDT." <20020519202925.GA17015@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 00:16:15 +0100 From: Brian Somers Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 12:45:12AM -0700, Crist J. Clark wrote: > > > > As for -STABLE, I haven't really heard any complaints? Might be a bit > > late to change the status quo before 4.6-RELEASE. > > Wouldn't it be a POLA violation anyway or is there enough security > concern to overrule POLA? Well, I guess that's why I'm soliciting comments. I personally set $daily_local in /etc/periodic.conf to run things. They're in the spirit of the existing periodic scripts - ie, they just report on things and don't update system files, but if people out there have been using $*_local to do other things like maintenance tasks, a restrictive umask may break things. The flip side of the argument is that our security scripts were (until recently) creating world-readable temporary files in /var/run that contained things such as output from ipfw(8) - something that a non-privileged user shouldn't see. If *we*'re doing this, our users are probably falling foul of the same sort of thing.... I'm leaning towards being cautious here. People ``know'' that the default umask is 022. If they write stuff that depends on that without explicitly setting the umask, I don't think it's up to us to surprise them. > -- > Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net -- Brian Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message