From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org  Fri Oct 21 16:49:06 2016
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD00FC1CC87
 for <freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:49:06 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from marquis@roble.com)
Received: from mx5.roble.com (mx5.roble.com [206.40.34.5])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client CN "mx5.roble.com", Issuer "mx5.roble.com" (not verified))
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C32CFA28
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:49:06 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from marquis@roble.com)
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com>
To: Walter Schwarzenfeld <w.schwarzenfeld@utanet.at>
cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: pkg audit -F - insufficient privileges
In-Reply-To: <6e2ffc0c-8b9a-09d7-83f5-4cbe1cda2dbf@utanet.at>
References: <01019cb0-e7c5-ce5b-3555-1cfbaaec9f7a@utanet.at>
 <6e2ffc0c-8b9a-09d7-83f5-4cbe1cda2dbf@utanet.at>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:49:06 -0000

Walter Schwarzenfeld wrote:
> |chmod 755 /var/db/pkg solved it.

Interesting.  I had to 'chmod 644 /var/db/pkg/vuln.xml' for the same
effect.  Wouldn't best practices set these at 750 and 640?  Is there an
upside to restricting access to vuln.xml considering it's world readable
on the web?

Roger