On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:40:16AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 10:19 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 11:45:27PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > > > I'm not quite sure I'm ready to bring this to the FPC for a vote, but > > > I've been working on a modified version of Ville's draft: > > > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/UsersAndGroupsDraft > > > > > > While this is more complicated, I think it more adequately covers the > > > corner cases of adding users and groups. Thoughts? > > > > It is far too complicated, Ville's version did the job already quite > > well. You're also introducing non-standard tools again. :/ > > Not really. The tools I introduced are helper scripts. > > Ville's draft only created the user/group if it didn't exist, and if > not, didn't, but left the files owned as that user/group. That security > issue concerns me. Looking at it again I think it doesn't improve if you elevate the ownership to root. Imaging the package in question being ftp, http, mldonkey or whatever daemon has been made non-root so a remote attacker cannot elevate his priviledges. By making these root the daemons have too much priviledges. So please no silent failure and "recovery", if there is a broken user/group better bail out of the transation. It really will be rare corner case unless we get a daemon called Jacob or Emily (current top baby names in the US ;=) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpOt8TabRrYO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
