On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 21:59 +0200, Julien Valroff wrote: > They are reluctant on changing this. > As far as I remember of a previous discussion, the current permissions > were set after a real conscious decision. I'll have a look at this.
> > Well I'd use -a,... > Well, upstream use -p but that's enough for your concern, am I right? Well... -p will loose any SELinux stuff, and perhaps also ACLs? Might be not the best idea... e.g. protecting stuff like passwd via them,... and then it get's dropped.. > > but nevertheless change the rights of the dir > > itslef.... why having something more open than needed? > Security through obscurity? ;) Don't think so... it's a common rule in security to just open as much as strictly required.... even if for the moment something would be still secure when being more open,... this could quickly change later and nobody remembers... > I am really not against this, but I do not see what it would bring. Well I didn't claim that I have a concrete example where the current way is problematic,.. but this doesn't mean that there aren't any ;) I do however not understand what upstream has against this?! Cheers, Chris. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
