On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 00:58:27 +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-08-04 at 23:50 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-08-04 at 13:56:45 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > Ansgar writes:
> > > > 10.9 Permissions and owners currently says
> > > > > Files should be owned by root:root, and
I'm ignoring the case where capabilities are dropped in my analysis.
I've long valued that Debian does not mark file paths as readonly and
would not support this change.
I've worked on other Unix distributions that did this, and I found that
it decreased the quality of life of the sysadmin
On Tue, 2020-08-04 at 23:50 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-08-04 at 13:56:45 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Ansgar writes:
> > > 10.9 Permissions and owners currently says
> > > > Files should be owned by root:root, and made writable only by the
> > > > owner and universally readable
Guillem Jover writes:
> On Tue, 2020-08-04 at 13:56:45 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I assume this is in support of systems, containers, or jails where UID
>> 0 may not have CAP_FOWNER?
> If that's the reason, it certainly was not clear from the original
> report. :)
It seems like the context
On Tue, 2020-08-04 at 13:56:45 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ansgar writes:
> > 10.9 Permissions and owners currently says
>
> > | Files should be owned by root:root, and made writable only by the
> > | owner and universally readable (and executable, if appropriate),
> > | that is mode 644 or
Ansgar writes:
> 10.9 Permissions and owners currently says
> | Files should be owned by root:root, and made writable only by the
> | owner and universally readable (and executable, if appropriate),
> | that is mode 644 or 755."
> However most files shouldn't be modified as modifications will
6 matches
Mail list logo
