On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 02:40:16AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2020-08-06 18:40:50 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > > Are you serious, Vincent? I'm pretty sure you well know that this is > > a horrible idea, clearly contrary to best security practices, that no > > competent sysadmin managing servers holding anything vaguely sensitive > > would ever allow on a multi-user system (and we've already established > > that systems only ever used by one human render the configurable umask > > moot). This is system security 101 (e.g. SANS GSEC). Users to > > usernames are 1:1. > > This is complete nonsense.
I agree; everything you said that followed IS complete nonsense. The subversion example is a special case of an application that you use through a web server, that has its own security implications. It's nothing like using multiple users on your system to do different tasks, like reading your e-mail with one user, and then handling attachments with a different one. In 35+ years of computing, a significant chunk of which I was a professional sysadmin/security admin, I've seen exactly zero people do that. That's not a very believable scenario. There's no sane reason to do this, and Mutt should not attempt to cater to insanity. > I am the sysadmin and the only user of my own machines. I addressed this case in the post I linked. If this is the case YOU DON'T NEED UMASK, even with your completely silly, contrived example. Because as you yourself said, you use the user that makes sense to use for the given situation, which in this case would be the user which already has access to the files. THIS IS A BAD FEATURE. It will either provide NO BENEFIT or ACTUAL DETRIMENT to anyone who wants to use it. Mutt should not implement it. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
