On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 04:51:41PM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 08.09.2009, 16:48 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan: > > On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 07:22:36PM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko > > wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Colin Watson<cjwat...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 02:29:03PM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote: > > > >> Currently grub-mkconfig uses chmod 444 on the newly generated grub.cfg > > > >> Wouldn't it be better to use 400 now that we have plaintext password > > > >> support? > > > >> Or should we add support for a GRUB_CHMOD variable so users can > > > >> override > > > >> this setting as they please? > > > > > > > > I'd prefer to see this done only if they set a password. A GRUB_CHMOD > > > > variable seems overkill, though. > > > Is there a reason a non-root would like to look at grub.cfg on > > > production system? Developers can always override chmod. If there is > > > no real reason for non-root to look into grub.cfg I would follow the > > > best friend in security considerations called "paranoia" and just use > > > mode 400 > > > > I like the idea of using 0400 right away, for simplicity. > > > > OTOH, world-readable grub.cfg is useful, at least in Debian, because > > reportbug includes this file in bug reports. > > > > But if it's only useful for Debian, we shouldn't let this change our > > agenda (ah, the conflict of wearing two hats...). > > > > So in upstream we change it to 400 + warning and for Debian we use my > last patch?
Ok. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
