On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:31:37 -0600, Bob Proulx b...@proulx.com wrote:
Non-text part: multipart/signed
Sorry but I don't understand. How would setting secure_path in a new
sudoers.d file create a situation where a system would remain broken?
The only reason files in sudoers.d get read is that I
Package: sudo
Version: 1.8.2-1
Severity: normal
The latest version closes Bug#85123 and Bug#85917. However the
resulting change in behavior of secure_path is significant and needs a
NEWS entry. Most users with sudo installed will have a modified
/etc/sudoers file and will need to manually merge
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:46:54 -0600, Bob Proulx b...@proulx.com wrote:
Alternatively the sudo package could include a new conffile file in
the package /etc/sudoers.d/00-secure_path or some such that includes
the new secure_path setting. Being a new file it would be installed
by default without
Bdale Garbee wrote:
Bob Proulx wrote:
Alternatively the sudo package could include a new conffile file in
the package /etc/sudoers.d/00-secure_path or some such that includes
the new secure_path setting. Being a new file it would be installed
by default without dialog and become
4 matches
Mail list logo
