<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [PATCH] Add $umask for mailboxes and attachments



On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 12:05:49AM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 01:15:10PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > Hi, and sorry for the late followup.
> > 
> > Imho there are 3 issues left in the umask handling:
> > 
> > #1: main.c sets umask(077) unconditionally. Should be removed.
> 
> I'm sorry I missed the start of this thread.  The umask patch is, IMO,
> yet another abomination of a security mistake.  Here are some nice
> words from Thomas back in 2001 to support that idea.
> 
>   http://marc.info/?l=mutt-dev&m=98883584213566&w=2
> 
> I once argued to let the user's umask be what mutt uses.  I was wrong.
> 
> The essential problem is that Mutt does not behave like other user
> programs.  Rather than operating on data which can generally be
> assumed to be safe, as say vi would, Mutt is used PRIMARILY to process
> arbitrary untrusted data which comes from the Internet.

In which case wouldn't 177 be better?

        David

-- 
David Laight: david@xxxxxxxxx