On Wed, 19 May 2010 22:51:25 +0200, Willi Mann <foss...@wm1.at> wrote: > The gain would be a guard against accidental 002 umasks in non-UPG > environments, which I'm quite sure will happen. Either because admins do > not > read the release notes or because they forget to do the change on one of
> their newly-installed machines despite reading the release notes. I also think, that the current check is far to less... Nevertheless may I suggest to stop any further active changes in that issue (UPG/umask) until this discussion here is over and final decision has been made. Or is that already, the case? At least I've had the impression that neither mine, nor the arguments of some other people (Harald, Peter, etc.) were even answered here. > On the other hand, other distributions already use default 002 umask > unconditionally and I'm not aware of any complaints. So admins in non-UPG > environments using these distros seem to be able to cope with it. The reason could be that people simply don't recognise, that they might have compromised their own security... and those who know what happens don't complain. > However, there might be stronger expectations about Debian's default > security-related settings, Well... I guess you can forget about that. > which might explain the harsh wordings chosen > by > some opponents of this change. Funny that you notice it.... I was (off list) mailed by some people and harshly insulted with words I better don't repeat here,... and not even for technical reasons, as stated, but just because I don't bow to what is considered the majority. And from all of us here: I wish you happy painting, Chris. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/39a6ceb8f92bb5718dc558d118c57...@imap.dd24.net
