Bug#626281: Security problem in keepalived's pid handling/daemonize code

OoO En ce début de soirée du mardi 10 mai 2011, vers 21:16, Alexander Wirt disait : >> > Readwrite permissions to the pidfile of a daemon is a really bad idea. a >> umask(0) is a classic way to daemonize a processus. See: >> http://www.unixguide.net/unix/programming/1.7.shtml > Yeah, but in da

Bug#626281: Security problem in keepalived's pid handling/daemonize code

Vincent Bernat schrieb am Tuesday, den 10. May 2011: > OoO Vers la fin de l'après-midi du mardi 10 mai 2011, vers 16:52, > Alexander Wirt disait : > > > today I got a bugreport about a security problem in keepalived. It seems > > that > > keepalived daemonize code explicitly sets umask(0

Bug#626281: Security problem in keepalived's pid handling/daemonize code

OoO Vers la fin de l'après-midi du mardi 10 mai 2011, vers 16:52, Alexander Wirt disait : > today I got a bugreport about a security problem in keepalived. It seems that > keepalived daemonize code explicitly sets umask(0) which leads to interesting > results: > -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root

Bug#626281: Security problem in keepalived's pid handling/daemonize code

tag 626281 upstream thanks Hi, today I got a bugreport about a security problem in keepalived. It seems that keepalived daemonize code explicitly sets umask(0) which leads to interesting results: -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 6 2010-11-24 00:12 keepalived.pid -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root