On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 12:39:00PM +0200, maks attems wrote:
> #253998 is yet another permissions bug,
> when looking through our code yesterday (while moving it),
> i saw that we didn't even check if we could read our offset files.
>
> i wonder if we should unconditionalize the permissions stuff out of
> logcheck.postinst, i've seen the new of rules that i added in my
> local logcheck dirs had permissions like those:
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 383 Jun 11 09:29 local-scponly
> yeeah logcheck could pick them up, so it's not critical,
> but we had another bug report who reported problems with local rules:
> #251404:
I am now seeing these problems on a production system.
-rw-r----- 1 root root 602 Jun 10 04:20 spamd
Not cool... We can unconditionalize the permission setters, but I'm
wondering if there is a better way... (i.e., Install them with correct
permissions)
--
[ Todd J. Troxell ,''`.
Student, Debian GNU/Linux Developer, SysAdmin, Geek : :' :
http://debian.org || http://rapidpacket.com/~xtat `. `'
`- ]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/logcheck-devel/attachments/20040628/25cdf8b6/attachment.pgp