[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171106201553.GA20542@openwall.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:15:53 +0100
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Bram@...lenaar.net
Subject: Re: Fw: Security risk of vim swap files
On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 07:03:07PM -0700, Kurt Seifried wrote:
> Also you're all still ignoring umask =(. Please, when you create a new
> file, check the umask and subtract it to make sure you're abiding by the
> user's wishes.
Ignoring umask may be OK if the program sets the most restrictive
permissions it can work with, and I suppose in this case that's 0600.
On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 08:08:49AM +0100, Christian Brabandt wrote:
> On So, 05 Nov 2017, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > Couldn't vim create swapfiles with mode 0600 and be done with it?
>
> Because then users of the group could not recover the file anymore,
> although they are able to read the original file.
That's the behavior I would expect.
On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 08:11:58AM +0100, Christian Brabandt wrote:
> On So, 05 Nov 2017, Solar Designer wrote:
> > Yes, let's also force 0600 for "undo and backup files", please.
>
> Backup files and undo files are not created by default, only when Vim is
> configured to do so. Also the undofile does not leak any information,
> because as soon as the original file has been slightly altered, the undo
> information is discarded.
Thanks for the additional detail. None of this feels like a reason not
to set all of those files to 0600.
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
