Re: UMASK 002 or 022?

2017-06-30 Thread gwmfms6
On 2017-06-30 12:05, Holger Levsen wrote: On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:56:37AM -0400, gwmf...@openmailbox.org wrote: Ultimately, it wouldn't be as big a deal if it was possible to change the default umask for the gnome-session in Debian Stretch. the fact that it's impossible for you, doesnt

Re: UMASK 002 or 022?

2017-06-30 Thread gwmfms6
On 2017-06-30 09:17, Russell Stuart wrote: gwmf...@openmailbox.orgĀ is right in saying today's computer users don't have the "sharing is what makes us bigger than the sum of the parts" philosophy. Where he goes wrong is in assuming they share their computers. While there was a time many people

Re: UMASK 002 or 022?

2017-06-30 Thread gwmfms6
On 2017-06-30 00:18, darkestkhan wrote: Are you saying that default permissions for home dirs in Debian is 755? It was when I installed Jessie and most recently Stretch. sc...@sl.id.au wrote: Can you point to a real, specific security problem that this has caused? I already did, in my

Re: UMASK 002 or 022?

2017-06-29 Thread gwmfms6
The wider community doesn't seem that concerned with the fact that all Debian and Ubuntu users are now (with the most recent stable releases) completely unable to change their default umask (and further have a default setting that gives the world read access to all their documents). I think

Re: Subject: UMASK 002 or 022?

2017-06-28 Thread gwmfms6
to the user what they are doing (ie, they are giving the world access to those particular files). On 2017-06-28 07:25, Ian Jackson wrote: Paul Wise writes ("Re: Subject: UMASK 002 or 022?"): On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 1:11 AM, gwmfms6 wrote: > This discussion should be on w

Re: Subject: UMASK 002 or 022?

2017-06-28 Thread gwmfms6
Paul, you seemed to indicate that you were able to set a different "user default" umask in Stretch that's respected by gnome apps like gedit? How did you do it? On 2017-06-28 09:21, Paul Wise wrote: On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 7:25 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: The appropriate default umask is 002 if

Re: Subject: UMASK 002 or 022?

2017-06-28 Thread gwmfms6
You didn't notice because you run umask from your shell configuration? In other words, you have a working umask in Stretch? I want a working umask in stretch. Can you tell me how to "run `umask 027` from my shell configuration"? Currently, I have not found a way to get gnome to respect umask

Re: Subject: UMASK 002 or 022?

2017-06-28 Thread gwmfms6
Setting umask in ~/.profile on Jessie works for me. On 2017-06-28 01:04, Arto Jantunen wrote: It doesn't work since pam_umask isn't run by default. However as far as I know this has been the case for a very long time (the oldest install I can check quickly is squeeze and it has the same

Subject: UMASK 002 or 022?

2017-06-28 Thread gwmfms6
I'd like to know why giving the world (Other) read access is even under consideration. If user wants a file to have Other readability this should be on the user to set it, but it should not be the default. What is the justification that every user be able to read every other user's documents?

Subject: UMASK 002 or 022?

2017-06-27 Thread gwmfms6
I'd like to know why giving the world (Other) read access is even under consideration. If user wants a file to have Other readability this should be on the user to set it, but it should not be the default. What is the justification that every user be able to read everyone else's documents?