On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:33:59AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> > It is? OK, I am telling you /usr/bin/bar program in package
> > foo really needs to be sgid. I'll document it in bar.6. Is this the
> > end of discussion? Or are we going to reall
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 11:58:13PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> As I have said before, I have no beef with programs being
> audited. My point, from the beginning, was that the proposal seemed
> to talk about consensus on the list, and seemed to state it was a bug
> not to have achieve
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 10:04:09PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I can easily code an entry for katie and friends that takes a new
> package, and marks up the ones with setgid bits set -- and the ftp
> maintainers do not create override entries until they see a consensus
> develop, or the s
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Policy can make it so that packages are not accepted into
> Debian unless you hop through certain hoops. Like making sure the
> upload has a signature. Or that it has an entry in the override
> file. I can easily code an entry for katie and fr
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Why do we need policy to tell us to do what you suggest are
> good, common sense things?
Oh come on. You honestly think there is common sense in this project? Not
everyone is as smart, brilliant, and perfect as you.
If there was common sense
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> It is? OK, I am telling you /usr/bin/bar program in package
> foo really needs to be sgid. I'll document it in bar.6. Is this the
> end of discussion? Or are we going to really need to look at the code
> to see if the setgidness can be worked
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, [iso-8859-2] Micha³Politowski wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 19:19:10 +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> [...]
> > From my investigations, I thought that the intended use of dpkg-statoverride
> > was by the local administrator, modifying the default suid/sgid and
> > ownership of the
* Manoj Srivastava
| Why do we need policy to tell us to do what you suggest are
| good, common sense things?
Because common sense isn't as common as it should be. Not even among
DDs. :(
--
Tollef Fog Heen,''`.
UNIX is user frien
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 23:52:57 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Policy can make it so that packages are not accepted into Debian
>> unless you hop through certain hoops. Like making sure the upload
>> has a signature. Or that it has an entry in the override fil
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Policy can make it so that packages are not accepted into
> Debian unless you hop through certain hoops. Like making sure the
> upload has a signature. Or that it has an entry in the override
> file.
No, those have nothing to do with policy and are implemented so
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 22:30:52 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I note that later discussion tried to paint this whole process as
>> getting people involved in auditing code, and not a mandatory
>> requirement (ie, if you do not get a consensus then your packag
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I note that later discussion tried to paint this whole process
> as getting people involved in auditing code, and not a mandatory
> requirement (ie, if you do not get a consensus then your package is
> buggy) that was in the original proposal.
Fundamentally you m
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 18:53:34 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I would be enthusiastically for a list like -legal, where people
>> can go and ask for help to have packages audited, but not for
>> people rolling up policy to beat people on the head to make it s
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I would be enthusiastically for a list like -legal, where
> people can go and ask for help to have packages audited, but not for
> people rolling up policy to beat people on the head to make it so.
Perhaps your confusion stems from me using a non-normative "should
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 13:24:13 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Not without a transition plan in the general case. And my point,
>> which you have not addressed, was that most of your examples were
>> not ones that mandated significant changes to the source or
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I haven't objected to code reviews of packages; I objected to
> gathering consensus through discussion; and making admission of new
> packages incumbent on such consensus.
Again, how is this different from the debian-legal mailing list?
--
see shy jo, amazed at
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Not without a transition plan in the general case. And my
> point, which you have not addressed, was that most of your examples
> were not ones that mandated significant changes to the source or
> behavior of programs.
> First, most of these alloowed people
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 00:16:59 -0400, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 10:57:51AM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
>> I don't care if you mandate a prior peer view _request_ (not prior
>> approval)
> This is what was proposed, except that it was recommended rather
> than
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 11:59:03 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In certian cultures, including mine, gratutious repitions of ones
> point is considered childish and rude and something most of us
> outgrow by age 6.
I would much rather you restricted your responses to the
substa
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 22:17:16 -0400, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 08:14:15PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Heh. You should look at what is in the current version:
> Is that what you would say to the users who have angband installed
> on Woody? I do not th
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 03:14:23 -0400, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 08:58:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> This bug and others existed in your package for over four years (and
> still exist in stable today). We might still not know about it if
> you had no
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> There are other solutions, including group membership, but it doesn't
> matter, because that is not what I am talking about. The fact is, many
> programs run with privileges that they do NOT require in order to function
> acceptably, or even fully, and I want to promote dis
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Packaging informatoin, not program behaviour affected by
> this. Packaging details are determined by developers, and can be
> easily changed.
>
> Packaging informatoin, not program behaviour affected by
> this. Packaging details are determined by developer
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 03:14:23AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Surely two people would be an improvement over the current situation, where
> there is no review at all. Our demonstration has shown how one person can
> discover some common flaws with a relatively brief review.
*Exactly*. Wel
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 08:58:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> Given the last review of a setgid program, I wonder if two
> people are enough. The mistake was simple, human, and undesrtandable,
> but the review does not in fact talk about any flaws in the current
> version of angba
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 08:58:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Given the last review of a setgid program, I wonder if two
> people are enough.
Surely two people would be an improvement over the current situation, where
there is no review at all. Our demonstration has shown how one pe
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 10:57:51AM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
> I don't care if you mandate a prior peer view _request_ (not prior approval)
This is what was proposed, except that it was recommended rather than
mandated.
--
- mdz
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 20:48:26 -0400, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> This, sir, is a lie.
> This statement has very little meaning from you.
Then I think this discussion has reached the end of its useful
life.
>> I did not call you disingenuous for asking for clarification,
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 08:14:15PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Heh. You should look at what is in the current version:
Is that what you would say to the users who have angband installed on Woody?
I do not think this is something to laugh about.
> Superficial audits are probably
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 13:46:48 -0400,
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- policy.sgml.orig 2003-08-01 13:40:51.0 -0400
> +++ policy.sgml 2003-08-01 13:45:24.0 -0400
> @@ -7104,6 +7104,14 @@
> execute them.
>
>
> +
> + Since setuid and set
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 20:48:26 -0400, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> That's nice. angband links with every library on the planet,
> including X11. This should be easy.
> [...about 2 minutes later...]
> Even easier than I thought.
> mizar:[...ity/angband/angband-291/src] tail +81 mai
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 05:38:41PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 16:55:12 -0400, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > The rules in this section are guidelines for general use. If
> > necessary you may deviate from the details below. However, if
> > y
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 16:55:12 -0400, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 02:22:27PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 14:50:16 -0400, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>> > First, no one would _need_ to discuss this because it is only a
>>
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 05:09:56PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> It is? OK, I am telling you /usr/bin/bar program in package
> foo really needs to be sgid. I'll document it in bar.6. Is this the
> end of discussion? Or are we going to really need to look at the code
> to see if the setg
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 22:44:24 +0200, Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 02:22:27PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > Often, I believe that the discussion will determine whether or
>> > not it truly depends on being setid.
>>
>> That would be really hard to do, unl
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 02:22:27PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 14:50:16 -0400, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > First, no one would _need_ to discuss this because it is only a
> > recommendation (though a wise one).
>
> Again, a recommendation, about iss
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 02:22:27PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Often, I believe that the discussion will determine whether or not
> > it truly depends on being setid.
>
> That would be really hard to do, unless soneone gets into the
> nitty gritty of the code and determines it is not
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 14:50:16 -0400, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 12:49:06PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 13:09:09 -0400, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>> > No, we are talking about recommending that developers discuss
>> >
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 12:49:06PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 13:09:09 -0400, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > No, we are talking about recommending that developers discuss with other
> > developers before making a change to their package which is
>
> S
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 13:09:09 -0400, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 11:39:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> You are now talking about putting things into policy that require
>> maintainerrs to change program behaviour to attain similar
>> functionality and f
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 10:24:46PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> DSA-360: no (daemon)
> DSA-359: yes (uid root: hardware access)
> DSA-358: no (kernel)
> DSA-357: no (daemon)
> DSA-356: yes (gid games)
> DSA-355: no (web css)
> DSA-354: yes (gid games)
> DSA-353: no (daemon, temp fi
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 11:39:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> You are now talking about putting things into policy that
> require maintainerrs to change program behaviour to attain similar
> functionality and features; and all the examples you quote are about
> packaging details tha
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 09:16:25PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Only because Steve Kemp is doing some good work on auditing our games.
> I suspect he would have just as much luck finding security holes in some
> other areas.
I've mostly covered the games now, there's not too many left that I
w
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 23:57:04 +0200, Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 03:58:13PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hmm. Are you willing then to help modify each game to allow this to
>> happen? Some changes are quite extensive.
> Hmm.. I am sure the maintainers o
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 21:12:10 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> This seems like a good practice kind of recommendation, not an
>> requirement, and as such, may be better suited to be included in
>> developers reference rather than policy, don't you think?
> I
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 09:19:46PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > Umm... you invent a scorewriter for removing the sgui games bit? And then
> > you add a sgid scoresetter? I dont think this makes mch sence.
>
> You need to learn some more about security then. Small, simple an
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 09:38:46AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > nethack is the only game which comes to mind which does this, and I think it
> > should probably be changed to keep the saved game in the user's home
> > directory. This was clearly done in
I demand that Herbert Xu may or may not have written...
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> nethack is the only game which comes to mind which does this, and I think
>> it should probably be changed to keep the saved game in the user's home
>> directory. This was clearly done in order
Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> Umm... you invent a scorewriter for removing the sgui games bit? And then
> you add a sgid scoresetter? I dont think this makes mch sence.
You need to learn some more about security then. Small, simple and well
defined programs are often more secure than large monoliths th
Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> Looking at this statistic, it is clearly visible that most of the exploits
> are game related,
Only because Steve Kemp is doing some good work on auditing our games.
I suspect he would have just as much luck finding security holes in some
other areas.
> Yes, but I think t
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> This seems like a good practice kind of recommendation, not an
> requirement, and as such, may be better suited to be included
> in developers reference rather than policy, don't you think?
I agree that policy can't force developers to do that, but policy is
alrea
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> nethack is the only game which comes to mind which does this, and I think it
>> should probably be changed to keep the saved game in the user's home
>> directory. This was clearly done in order to try to pre
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> nethack is the only game which comes to mind which does this, and I think it
> should probably be changed to keep the saved game in the user's home
> directory. This was clearly done in order to try to prevent cheating, but
> again, these days the pla
I demand that Stephen Frost may or may not have written...
[snip]
> and a consensus reached which approves of the application and it's
> needs. ?
Almost: s/'// :-)
--
| Darren Salt | linux (or ds) at | nr. Ashington,
| woody, sarge, | youmustbejoking | Northumberland
| RISC OS | demon
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 03:58:13PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hmm. Are you willing then to help modify each game to allow
> this to happen? Some changes are quite extensive.
Hmm.. I am sure the maintainers of the affected packages will ask for help.
Greetings
Bernd
--
(OO) -
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 16:01:03 -0400, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:15:50PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Only if the game still works -- some games keep not just score
>> files, but saved games in the common area, and would not work as
>> expected if they
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 22:31:16 +0200, Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> BUT: i realy do think each game MUST offer the non sgid option. We
> could have a global question herer:
Hmm. Are you willing then to help modify each game to allow
this to happen? Some changes are quite exte
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 04:13:30PM -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 16:01:03 -0400 Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > nethack is the only game which comes to mind which does this, and I
> > think it should probably be changed to keep the saved game in the user's
> > home dir
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 01:56:50PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> I think you can set it up so users cannot forge high scores by just
> running such a helper. Make the helper sgid scorewriter, and make the
> games setgid scoresetter
Umm... you invent a scorewriter for removing the sgui games bit? And t
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 01:46:48PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Setuid and setgid programs are one of the main causes of security
> holes and DSA's in Debian.
Hmm
DSA-360: no (daemon)
DSA-359: yes (uid root: hardware access)
DSA-358: no (kernel)
DSA-357: no (daemon)
DSA-356: yes (gid ga
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 16:01:03 -0400
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:15:50PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> > Only if the game still works -- some games keep not just score
> > files, but saved games in the common area, and would not work as
> > expec
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:15:50PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Only if the game still works -- some games keep not just score
> files, but saved games in the common area, and would not work as
> expected if they could not write to that area.
nethack is the only game which comes to mi
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 13:46:48 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Here's a draft policy proposal. If this looks ok I'll submit it to
> the policy group.
> Proposal: [DRAFT] require peer review for setuid and setgid program
> introduction
> Setuid and setgid programs are one of the main c
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:22:17 -0400, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 08:20:08AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> what's wrong with a low-priority debconf question with a sane
>> default?
> As long as the sane default is the safe default, which is not to be
> setg
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 08:20:40PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:15:26PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > it would be trivial to add lintian/linda warnings for this,
> >
> > There's already a warning for set[ug]id in Lintia
* Joey Hess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> --- policy.sgml.orig 2003-08-01 13:40:51.0 -0400
> +++ policy.sgml 2003-08-01 13:45:24.0 -0400
> @@ -7104,6 +7104,14 @@
> execute them.
>
>
> +
> + Since setuid and setgid programs are often a security
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 08:20:40PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:15:26PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > it would be trivial to add lintian/linda warnings for this,
>
> There's already a warning for set[ug]id in Lintian.
Ah, ok. But the point was that it will miss many
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:15:26PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> it would be trivial to add lintian/linda warnings for this,
There's already a warning for set[ug]id in Lintian.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 01:46:48PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Here's a draft policy proposal. If this looks ok I'll submit it to the
> policy group.
Thanks for doing this. It looks fine, with the exception of a small typo:
> + Since setuid and setgid programs are often a security rick,
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 01:56:50PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> I think you can set it up so users cannot forge high scores by just
> running such a helper. Make the helper sgid scorewriter, and make the
> games setgid scoresetter (these names could be better). Then the helper
> would refuse to write
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Personally, I would lean more towards having a setgid helper which writes to
> the game's score file. It is possible to audit such helpers completely in a
> short amount of time, and I feel that it would be far better to open
> ourselves up to letting users forge their own
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 11:26:57AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> > * Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > I absolutely support this idea. All set[ug]id setups should be reviewed
> > > before they go in the archive, and I volunteer to do the review (though I
>
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 05:33:23PM +0100, Steve Kemp wrote:
> There's probably a lot to be said for building a chroot installation
> and installing each package in turn; but I don't have the time for that
> at the moment.
I have some basic tools for doing this kind of thing using UML's
copy-o
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 11:34:11AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Steve Kemp
>
> | On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 08:20:08AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> |
> | > what's wrong with a low-priority debconf question with a sane default?
> |
> | Absolutely nothing at all, but it's a slippery slope,
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 11:26:57AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > I absolutely support this idea. All set[ug]id setups should be reviewed
> > before they go in the archive, and I volunteer to do the review (though I
> > hope that others will help).
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 12:55:28PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > I also think it would be a good idea for policy to require all setuid/gid
> > bit grants to go through this or another list for peer review, much as
> > pre-depends are supposed to.
>
> I a
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 11:18:53AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > I also think it would be a good idea for policy to require all setuid/gid
> > bit grants to go through this or another list for peer review, much as
> > pre-depends are supposed to.
>
> I absolutely support this idea. All set[ug
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 08:45:16PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I also think it would be a good idea for policy to require all
> > setuid/gid bit grants to go through this or another list for peer
> > review, much as pre-depends are supposed to.
>
> How
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 08:20:08AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> what's wrong with a low-priority debconf question with a sane default?
As long as the sane default is the safe default, which is not to be setgid.
--
- mdz
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 06:37:53PM +0100, Steve Kemp wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 12:55:28PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > I'd like to see us move all of our setgid games (except, perhaps,
> > nethack) away from using global score files by default.
>
> I think that should be a good option
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 12:55:28PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> I also think it would be a good idea for policy to require all setuid/gid
> bit grants to go through this or another list for peer review, much as
> pre-depends are supposed to.
I absolutely support this idea. All set[ug]id setups shou
Herbert Xu wrote:
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I also think it would be a good idea for policy to require all
setuid/gid bit grants to go through this or another list for peer
review, much as pre-depends are supposed to.
How about creating a new group for each game?
Umm... With hundreds, p
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 19:19:10 +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
[...]
> From my investigations, I thought that the intended use of dpkg-statoverride
> was by the local administrator, modifying the default suid/sgid and
> ownership of the file as set in the package tarball.
This is also my understanding.
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I also think it would be a good idea for policy to require all
> setuid/gid bit grants to go through this or another list for peer
> review, much as pre-depends are supposed to.
How about creating a new group for each game?
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out!
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 10:08:17AM +0200, Micha? Politowski wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:30:11 +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 01:17:01PM +0100, Steve Kemp wrote:
> > > http://www.steve.org.uk/cgi-bin/debian/index.cgi
> >
> > If you're just scanning for binaries wit
* Steve Kemp
| On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 08:20:08AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
|
| > what's wrong with a low-priority debconf question with a sane default?
|
| Absolutely nothing at all, but it's a slippery slope, and I thought
| we were tending towards less interactivity in installations?
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:30:11 +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 01:17:01PM +0100, Steve Kemp wrote:
> > http://www.steve.org.uk/cgi-bin/debian/index.cgi
>
> If you're just scanning for binaries with s bits set, then you'll
> probably miss all the ones that use whatever th
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 08:20:08AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> what's wrong with a low-priority debconf question with a sane default?
Absolutely nothing at all, but it's a slippery slope, and I thought
we were tending towards less interactivity in installations?
Steve
--
* Steve Kemp
[...]
| I'm loath to ask the user if it should be setgid in the installer
| because that's just needless distraction, but perhaps some global
| 'setgidnes' setting could be stored in /etc/games?
[...]
what's wrong with a low-priority debconf question with a sane default?
--
Steve Kemp wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 12:55:28PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > I'd like to see us move all of our setgid games (except, perhaps,
> > nethack) away from using global score files by default.
>
> I think that should be a good option, but I can see several
> games that migh
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 06:37:53PM +0100, Steve Kemp wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 12:55:28PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > I also think it would be a good idea for policy to require all
> > setuid/gid bit grants to go through this or another list for peer
> > review, much as pre-depends are supp
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 12:55:28PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> I'd like to see us move all of our setgid games (except, perhaps,
> nethack) away from using global score files by default.
I think that should be a good option, but I can see several
games that might suffer by it.
I'm loath to
Steve Kemp wrote:
> A long time ago[1] I asked if there was a list of all the setuid/setgid
> binaries contained in the previous Debian stable release.
>
> As there still isn't such a list I've created one and placed it online
> with a simple search form.
>
> (This is the list that my re
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 05:30:11PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> If you're just scanning for binaries with s bits set, then you'll
> probably miss all the ones that use whatever that tool was
> (suidmanager?) that was used by some packages before we had
> dpkg-statoverride.
Yes I know that I
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 01:17:01PM +0100, Steve Kemp wrote:
> http://www.steve.org.uk/cgi-bin/debian/index.cgi
If you're just scanning for binaries with s bits set, then you'll
probably miss all the ones that use whatever that tool was
(suidmanager?) that was used by some packages before we
A long time ago[1] I asked if there was a list of all the setuid/setgid
binaries contained in the previous Debian stable release.
As there still isn't such a list I've created one and placed it online
with a simple search form.
(This is the list that my recent spate of bug reporting has
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:39:04PM +, Steve Kemp wrote:
> I was wondering if there was a definitive list of all the setuid/setgid
> binaries which may be installed from the Debian archives.
>
> (Such a list would be very useful in prioritizing any examination of
> source code).
>
> I'
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:39:04PM +, Steve Kemp wrote:
> I was wondering if there was a definitive list of all the setuid/setgid
> binaries which may be installed from the Debian archives.
>
> (Such a list would be very useful in prioritizing any examination of
> source code).
>
>
Hi,
I was wondering if there was a definitive list of all the setuid/setgid
binaries which may be installed from the Debian archives.
(Such a list would be very useful in prioritizing any examination of
source code).
I've partially worked my way through the list of packages which are
99 matches
Mail list logo
