On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 09:48:41PM +0000, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:22:04 -0600, Aaron Toponce > <aaron.topo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > You've only mentioned that SSH won't operate if the write bit is set on > > the keys or anything under the ~/.ssh/ directory. Can you explain how an > > ssh client failing to connect to an external ssh server because of the > > umask is compromising security on the system? > > Simply read the mails and those from the other critics again, it's not > only annoying for myself to repeat things over and over again but also for > everybody else to read it again. > Nevertheless just saying "everything's fine" or "you only complained about > ssh" won't really solve the issues, but just help to wave these changes > through.
The problem is that most of your mails started with "OMG Debian will compromise security, you all suck" or a paraphrasing thereof, so most people didn't bother to read your mails in full and never actually read a reasonable argument why the default umask should not be changed for UPG setups. Michael -- 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/20100520142416.gb22...@nighthawk.chemicalconnection.dyndns.org
