On mer., 2016-02-03 at 14:37 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > [Context: packages shipping /bin with “funny” permissions, seen in stable.] > > Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@debian.org> (2016-02-03): > > > > On mar., 2016-02-02 at 17:16 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > > > > > I didn't check the whole archive, but doing so might be interesting. > > I did a quick check on a local mirror (which might be incomplete), and > > found > > three packages with errors: > > > > dpkg -c debian/pool/main/s/sed/sed_4.2.2-4+b1_amd64.deb |grep bin/$ > > drwxrwxr-x root/root 0 2014-11-08 19:28 ./bin/ > > dpkg -c debian/pool/main/l/lpe/lpe_1.2.7-2_amd64.deb|grep bin/$ > > drwxrwxr-x root/root 0 2014-12-24 23:14 ./usr/bin/ > > dpkg -c debian/pool/main/u/ucspi-proxy/ucspi-proxy_0.99-1_amd64.deb|grep > > bin/$ > > drwxrwxr-x root/root 0 2014-08-10 18:08 ./usr/bin/ > > > > Note that lintian complains a lot about them: > > > > lintian sed_4.2.2-4+b1_amd64.deb > > W: sed: syntax-error-in-debian-changelog line 1 "unknown key-value key > > Binary-only - copying to XS-Binary-only" > > W: sed: latest-debian-changelog-entry-without-new-date > > E: sed: control-file-has-bad-permissions md5sums 0664 != 0644 > > W: sed: description-synopsis-starts-with-article > > W: sed: non-standard-dir-perm bin/ 0775 != 0755 > > W: sed: package-contains-timestamped-gzip > > usr/share/doc/sed/changelog.Debian.gz > > W: sed: non-standard-dir-perm usr/share/info/ 0775 != 0755 > > W: sed: package-contains-timestamped-gzip usr/share/info/sed.info.gz > > W: sed: non-standard-dir-perm usr/share/locale/ 0775 != 0755 > > W: sed: non-standard-dir-perm ... use --no-tag-display-limit to see all > > (or pipe to a file/program) > > W: sed: package-contains-timestamped-gzip usr/share/man/man1/sed.1.gz > > > > It looks like an umask problem at package build time. Right now it doesn't > > seem to have obvious security issues (like world writable /bin) but I'm > > not > > too sure there are not other stuff hidden. > > > > I guess it'd make sense to do an archive-wide lintian run to look for that > > kind of mistakes, and then ask for stable binNMUs of the relevant > > packages. > It seems to me that lintian looks at testing/unstable (at least looking > at https://lintian.debian.org/full/clint@debian.org.html#sed_4.2.2-6), > so I'm not sure this would help for stable. > > > > > > What do you think? > I think debian-release@ needs to be in the loop, doing so. > Hey, so as far as I can tell there was no reaction from -release (although I can understand noone's really sure what to do here). Is it at least possible to schedule binNMUs in stable for those affected packages so future installs don't end up with bad permissions like these? Regards, -- Yves-Alexis
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part