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

Re: user private groups and a src group

Bill Mitchell says:
> [ re making almost every directory setgid ]
> And all of this will of course come as a complete suprise to debian
> installers/users  who have not been party to this discussion.  They'll
> need to be clued in about it, or it'll cause lots of confusion for them.

What on earth are you talking about ?  What confusion ?

They need never know.  If they want to know what setgid on a directory
does they can RTFM and see that it does what they want (err, I need to
edit open(2) to reflect this - it appears to have been written before
this feature appeared in Linux ...)

Craig Sanders asked:
> I really don't see why this is needed as a default part of the debian
> distribution.

It has to be the default because retrofitting it is an incredible pain
in the backside.  You can't ask users to choose whether they want it
or not at install time because they won't understand the question.

Therefore you have to make the decision for people (those lucky few of
us who understand Unix well excepted).

To do this is clearly the right decision - the *only* cost is a larger
number of entries in /etc/group.  (I'm not counting the effort
required to edit adduser etc., as this is a one-off that is done by
the distributors.)


Clueless quotes:
 Craig Sanders:
 > This sounds horrendously insecure. /usr/bin is owned by root.root, for
 > example, and you want to have it setgid???? !

 Go read some manpages and a book on Unix and experiment a bit.  You are
 clearly lacking important clues.

 Carl Powers:
 > And I say, AMEN.  I have read the arguments, pro and con, and I can see
 > where the proposed changes would be advantageous to some users in some
 > situations, but not as a general solution to be forced on everybody.

 We're not voting on this, you know.

 > If it's FSSTND compliant, OK, otherwise, it's the local user/sysadmin's
 > problem.

 What has the FSSTND got to do with it ?  See above for reasons why we
 can't leave it to the local sysadmin.

Reply to: