On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 05:15:26PM -0700, Brendan Cully wrote: > On my OS X system, gpg lives in /sw/bin. Many others probably have it in > /opt or /usr/local. I don't think /usr/bin is a particularly foolproof Personally, I would still argue that /usr/bin is far and away the most common. Most people are running with gnupg supplied by their distro, and those update /usr/. People using OS X are in a definite minority; in addition, if they're savvy enough to use fink/darwinports to get mutt, it's kind of more or less automatic for them to be able to change an example muttrc. > setting, and I also don't think that any person interested in security > should run with garbage in $PATH. I would also guess that it's just as That's fine, and I would agree, but the person you're dealing with should be assumed to be a normal user, not "any person interested in security". > easy to modify a person's .muttrc as to put a trojan gpg somewhere in > their PATH. If you can modify someones personal files, the game's already over. > I'd like to hear some more concrete examples of the dangers of looking > up gpg in the path... I have none. I remain completely unconvinced by the merits of removing the absolute pathname. However, I'm not the one with commit access, you are. :-) Your call. -- Paul
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature