Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:31:08 -0600 From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Question about world readable config files and commented warnings On 06/30/2015 12:03 AM, gremlin@...mlin.ru wrote: > On 2015-06-29 23:11:08 -0600, Kurt Seifried wrote: > > > So, if a config file is world readable by default, but the section > > where you might put a password says: > > # Database URI for the database that stores the package > > # information. If it contains a password, make sure to > > # adjust the permissions of the config > > Is that good enough, e.g. no CVE, or do we actually need to have > > proper permissions? > > For me, that means: the developers did their best, everything else > is up to package maintainers. > > And, obviously, when the administrators will fill in the connection > parameters, they most likely will see this warning. > > > I'm thinking we need proper permissions and not a note (especially > > with administration tools/etc that may parse/modify the file > > but not change the perms). > > My experience says that developers' attempts to perform chmod (or, > even worse, chown) during `make install` are just ugly (at least > they never check whether DESTDIR is empty). From a developer perspective I somewhat agree, however I'm looking at this from a vendor perspective where we do control the chmod, easily (RPM spec file). -- Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud PGP A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993 Red Hat Product Security contact: secalert@...hat.com Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
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.