I'm working on the Security review of GlusterFS, which I have not quite completed, but to offer a comment on fusermount-glusterfs binary, the Security team would strongly prefer to not have another setuid binary for this; the original setuid fusermount has had its own security history and we would not like to see a forked version that has unknown tracking of vulnerabilities, especially for something that upstream considers to be a non-standard usage.
-- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1950321 Title: [MIR] glusterfs To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glusterfs/+bug/1950321/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
