Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Paul <dufflebunk AT dufflebunk.homeip.net>]

Perhaps the spell could force this as well, so next update everyone will
have the correct permissions?

On Mon, 2004-24-05 at 09:23 -0700, Seth Alan Woolley wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 08:31:30AM -0700, Eric Sandall wrote:
> > Quoting Seth Alan Woolley <seth AT positivism.org>:
> > 
> > > On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 04:27:30PM +0200, Vladim?r Marek wrote:
> > > > Was only mine and ruskie's /etc/shadow set to rw-r--r-- permissions, 
> > > > or
> > > > is it widespread SM 'feature' ? :)
> > > 
> > > $ ls -l /etc/shadow
> > > -r--------  1 root root 1992 May 21 15:05 /etc/shadow
> > > 
> > > which ISO and version of shadow are you using?
> > 
> > Installed from latest ISO (2.6.5 20040414) with shadow 4.0.4.1:
> > 
> > $ l /etc/shadow
> > -rw-r--r--  1 root root 1.2K 2004-05-14 09:57 /etc/shadow
> 
> root@sourcemage2:~# cat /etc/issue
> Welcome on Source Mage GNU/\s 0.9.1 \l
> root@sourcemage2:~# ls -l /etc/shadow
> -rw-r--r--  1 root root 815 Mar  8 16:40 /etc/shadow
> 
> I'm guessing what happened is that the ISO included an /etc/shadow that
> was 644 instead of 400 and it got copied over like that.  Perhaps the
> shadow spell never sets permissions if the file already exists.  Appears
> to be a problem with Hamish's ISO sets.
> 
> I just edited the ISO installer script to set the perms to 400 after it
> sets the root password.  I advise everybody to chmod 400 /etc/shadow on
> all their machines.
> 
> Seth
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part