On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 09:21:32PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> OoO Lors de la soirée naissante du mardi 10 mai 2011, vers 17:15,
> Alexander Wirt disait :
>
> >> Readwrite permissions to the pidfile of a daemon is a really bad idea. a
> >> umask of 000 is probably never a good idea. So
Moritz Mühlenhoff schrieb am Monday, den 07. November 2011:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 09:21:32PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> > OoO Lors de la soirée naissante du mardi 10 mai 2011, vers 17:15,
> > Alexander Wirt disait :
> >
> > >> Readwrite permissions to the pidfile of a daemon is a
OoO Pendant le journal télévisé du lundi 07 novembre 2011, vers 20:36,
Alexander Wirt disait :
> Ah, there was something. I hoped upstream would catch this up, unfortunatly
> that never happened. So I have to apply the patch on my own :(. I will do an
> upload later or tomorrow.
I think the fi
Alexander Wirt schrieb am Dienstag, den 10. Mai 2011:
> tag 626281 upstream
> thanks
>
> Hi,
>
> today I got a bugreport about a security problem in keepalived. It seems that
> keepalived daemonize code explicitly sets umask(0) which leads to interesting
> results:
> -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root
OoO Lors de la soirée naissante du mardi 10 mai 2011, vers 17:15,
Alexander Wirt disait :
>> Readwrite permissions to the pidfile of a daemon is a really bad idea. a
>> umask of 000 is probably never a good idea. So I think removing that lines
>> from keepalived/check/check_daemon.c, keepa
5 matches
Mail list logo
