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

Re: default permissions on /root



Jeremy Gaddis wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Bob Proulx wrote:
> 
> > There is no sensitive files installed in /root.  There really is no
> > reason not to make it 755.  Everyone knows what is in /root.  It is
> > not a secret.
> 
> oh?  what do i have in my /root directories then?

If your implication is that Bob doesn't know what _you_ have in your
/root directory, and therefore is being presumptuous, then the answer is
that you _shouldn't_ have anything much there.

The very few sensitive things that I keep in /root (config
files/directories for things like ssh and mcrypt, which I need for my
homebrew remote backup system) are set to owner-only permissions, just
as they would be in an ordinary user's account.

> where is a more appropriate location for files only to be seen or
> used by the root user than his home directory?

A subdirectory under /root with permissions set to 700, perhaps? That's
what I do, just as I do with sensitive files stored under my regular
user account.

> yes, i'm well aware of that.  and i don't use the root account
> for "nonadministrative work".  i use it solely for "administrative
> work", and henceforth, have files in /root not intended for the
> general public.  i stores script under /root that are run from
> crontab, and various other files.

I have scripts like that in /root/bin, which was 700 until I decided it
didn't matter whether anyone read them or not, and changed it to 755.
It's not as if they contain passwords. Finding out that I use tar,
mcrypt, and rsync-over-ssh for backups isn't going to do anyone much
good.

> i guess i wrongly assumed that a distribution that's usually
> somewhat sane would have somewhat sane permissions on a directory
> such as /root, which i consider "sensitive", so to speak.

I find it amusing, in a pathetic sort of way, to be implicitly accused
of insanity just because I have /root's permissions set to 755. Even
calling it insecure would be wrong, because what needs to be locked
down is locked down.

Craig

Attachment: pgpprnVUpMiHV.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: