On 12/11/2017 12:57 PM, Roger Price wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2017, Jim Klimov wrote:
I am not sure the rights offered in that bug are fully ok: generally
you wouldn't want the configs to be writable by the service daemon if
you can avoid it (so if it's hacked - it can be abused to a lesser
On Sun, 10 Dec 2017, Jim Klimov wrote:
I am not sure the rights offered in that bug are fully ok: generally you
wouldn't want the configs to be writable by the service daemon if you
can avoid it (so if it's hacked - it can be abused to a lesser extent).
I think the only writable bit is the
On December 10, 2017 4:55:51 PM GMT+01:00, Roger Price
wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Dec 2017, Charles Lepple wrote:
>
>> Either way, the default permissions are under the packager's control,
>so
>> I would recommend that you file a bug with Debian:
>>
On Sun, 10 Dec 2017, Charles Lepple wrote:
Either way, the default permissions are under the packager's control, so
I would recommend that you file a bug with Debian:
https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting (feel free to mention the bug
number here)
Debian Bug Tracker told me that the URL is
On Dec 10, 2017, at 6:10 AM, Roger Price wrote:
>
> The nut:nut ownership seems to me to be more natural, and the root:nut
> ownership looks like a bug in the Debian package.
I would argue it slightly differently: upsd has no need to write to upsd.users
(or change
I installed nut 2.7.4-5 on a fresh Debian 9.2.1 system. I updated the
configuration files, started nut in standalone mode, and got the error
message
Can't open /etc/nut/upsd.users: Permission denied
This is because the file has ownership and permissions
-rw--- 1 root nut 91
6 matches
Mail list logo