Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:42:09 +0200
From: Tavis Ormandy <>
Subject: Re: Re: CVE request(?): gpg: improper file permssions set when en/de-crypting files

Matthias Weckbecker <> wrote:

> On Friday 21 September 2012 23:47:48 Michael Gilbert wrote: [...]
> >
> > So anyway, I suppose this creates more questions than answers, but I
> > guess its worth thinking about.  After all, what did the user really
> > expect?  If they had intended that original file to be private, and now
> > its not, is that appropriate?  Is it more appropriate to assume all
> > users know how to use umask appropriately?
> >
> IMO if one bothers to encrypt a file at all it was certainly intended to
> be private and only supposed to be readable by a certain user / user group
> and not by just everyone. Otherwise encryption would be pointless, or are
> there any other reasons for encrypting a file?
> > Best wishes, Mike
> Thanks, Matthias

I agree. Users do know how to use umask properly, but this isn't what umask
is for. The umask for the low order bits are only applied if the program
requested 0666, it's still the responsibility of the program to choose the
appropriate permissions.

Creating sensitive files with 0666 and then saying "set your umask" is just


------------------------------------- | pgp encrypted mail preferred

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.