[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Default Homedir Permissions

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Roger Leigh <rleigh@codelibre.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 04:07:12PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Roger Leigh <rleigh@codelibre.net> wrote:
>> > In general, I think it's fair to say that the average Debian
>> > installation does not require Fort Knox levels of security.  Simply
>> > allowing other people to read our files is often something desirable;
>> Does other refer to other users, all other accounts or the entire world?
> It refers to S_IRWXO, which is what this bug is about.  What that
> means in practice is up to you.

Other (people) in "Simply allowing other people to read our files is
often something desirable" does not refer to S_IRWXO.

>> Like backups, the need for security is often discovered after it was necessary.
> Yes, but like everything there is a tradeoff.  A totally secure system
> is an unusable system.  Having to instruct every user how to relax the
> permissions to allow others to access their files, or allow their web
> pages to be visible, is effectively pointless make-work if that was what
> you wanted in the first place.

You're right, in that case it makes more sense to edit /etc/adduser.conf
Or to setup public dirs that people could use to share stuff without
defaulting to share their entire home dir.

> And for most people, I would argue that
> /is/ what is wanted.

Is it? A lot of people have desktops / laptops that aren't shared with
other people and that don't use the per-user public_html.

> Remember that historically, multi-user systems have been about sharing
> and collaboration, not isolation in walled-off prisons.  I know which
> type of system I want, and it's not the latter.

Historically security was not an issue.

> 0755 is not inherently insecure.  Others can't make any changes, but
> they can look.  The only issue here is accidental disclosure of
> information intended to be private.



Reply to: