Unix Technical Forum

root's umask and mozilla-1.7.3

This is a discussion on root's umask and mozilla-1.7.3 within the Slackware Linux Support forums, part of the Unix Operating Systems category; --> I have found a funny thing with Slackware 10.0 and mozilla-1.7.3. Suppose root has umask 077 (as is often ...


Go Back   Unix Technical Forum > Unix Operating Systems > Slackware Linux Support

FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 02-19-2008, 04:13 PM
Mikhail Zotov
 
Posts: n/a
Default root's umask and mozilla-1.7.3

I have found a funny thing with Slackware 10.0 and mozilla-1.7.3.
Suppose root has umask 077 (as is often suggested in security
HOWTOs). Suppose next that root is the first to start mozilla
after Slack is installed and upgraded. Then noone but root will
be able to start mozilla ... because mozilla creates a file
/usr/lib/mozilla-1.7.3/chrome/chrome.rdf and a directory
/usr/lib/mozilla-1.7.3/chrome/overlayinfo with subdirectories,
which can only be read by root :-)

I guess an even more interesting situation takes place if /usr is
mounted read-only (as is also sometimes suggested) :-)

Regards,
Mikhail
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 02-19-2008, 04:13 PM
Thomas Ronayne
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: root's umask and mozilla-1.7.3

Mikhail Zotov wrote:

>I have found a funny thing with Slackware 10.0 and mozilla-1.7.3.
>Suppose root has umask 077 (as is often suggested in security
>HOWTOs). Suppose next that root is the first to start mozilla
>after Slack is installed and upgraded. Then noone but root will
>be able to start mozilla ... because mozilla creates a file
>/usr/lib/mozilla-1.7.3/chrome/chrome.rdf and a directory
>/usr/lib/mozilla-1.7.3/chrome/overlayinfo with subdirectories,
>which can only be read by root :-)
>
>I guess an even more interesting situation takes place if /usr is
>mounted read-only (as is also sometimes suggested) :-)
>
>Regards,
>Mikhail
>
>

One of the cautions you see when folks suggest "safe" system-wide umask
settings is that there is a balance between safety and usability.

Assuming that users are aware and practice good password practices, that
passwords expire periodically, that special-purpose group identities are
created and users are assigned to them on a "need to know" basis, and
that a system has to be usable, a standard umask value of 022 (or 0022,
which is the same thing) is more than workable in the real world (I work
in a Sun farm of some 40+ large servers, 022 is the standard mask, and
we've done pretty well with that for decades).

The scenario you've given is just one of the many reasons that going
overboard can be, well, painful might be adequate. Manage your user
accounts, manage your group accounts, set your mask to 022 and get on
it: you'll be happier and so will the folks using the system.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0
www.UnixAdminTalk.com