On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 17:35 +, Calum Benson wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 15:00 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
Hmm, what do you propose to use then? Using Executable in the UI
sounds pretty lame, its an implementation detail after all.
Well, I'll ask our trusted desktop guys today
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 13:04 +, Calum Benson wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:16 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 13:52 +0100, Wouter Bolsterlee wrote:
So, my suggestion:
The application launcher %s has not been marked as trusted. If you do
not know
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 15:00 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
Hmm, what do you propose to use then? Using Executable in the UI
sounds pretty lame, its an implementation detail after all.
Well, I'll ask our trusted desktop guys today first, to see if they
think it's even an issue--maybe the
On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 13:52 +0100, Wouter Bolsterlee wrote:
2009-02-23 klockan 10:43 skrev Christian Rose:
On 2/23/09, Alexander Larsson al...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 15:24 +, Karl Lattimer wrote:
Untrusted application launcher
The file %s is an application
2009-02-24 klockan 10:16 skrev Alexander Larsson:
On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 13:52 +0100, Wouter Bolsterlee wrote:
1. Why use the passive voice in the first sentence (... is unknown to
you)? Directly addressing the user seems more logical in this case.
2. Why is marked as trusted? I think has
Am Dienstag, den 24.02.2009, 11:28 +0100 schrieb Wouter Bolsterlee:
2009-02-24 klockan 10:16 skrev Alexander Larsson:
On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 13:52 +0100, Wouter Bolsterlee wrote:
1. Why use the passive voice in the first sentence (... is unknown to
you)? Directly addressing the user
On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 14:04 +, Alan Cox wrote:
Its true that all of these *could* and *should* mark the file as
executable, however since we never demanded that before this would be a
regression for many users. Both for old created desktop files and for
new ones created by non-updated
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 15:24 +, Karl Lattimer wrote:
Untrusted application launcher
The file %s is an application launcher, but it is not marked trusted.
If you recieved this file from an unknown source or did not expect it
to be an application launcher it may be unsafe to launch.
On 2/23/09, Alexander Larsson al...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 15:24 +, Karl Lattimer wrote:
Untrusted application launcher
The file %s is an application launcher, but it is not marked trusted.
If you recieved this file from an unknown source or did not expect it
2009-02-23 klockan 10:43 skrev Christian Rose:
On 2/23/09, Alexander Larsson al...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 15:24 +, Karl Lattimer wrote:
Untrusted application launcher
The file %s is an application launcher, but it is not marked trusted.
If you recieved
Alexander Larsson wrote:
So, there has been a lot of attention on the internets recently about
the the desktop file virus issue.
See also http://www.purinchu.net/wp/2009/02/21/desktop-file-security/
KDE's attempt to solve the issue.
___
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 11:44 -0500, Dan Winship wrote:
Alexander Larsson wrote:
So, there has been a lot of attention on the internets recently about
the the desktop file virus issue.
I think its all pretty overblown, and any solution we have that doesn't
completely neuter the feature
Le vendredi 20 février 2009 à 15:21 +, Alexander Larsson a écrit :
However, I do agree that it is a bit bad that you can be a target of an
attack like this without really being able to realize it. So, my current
plan is two-fold:
1) Only detect desktop files with .desktop extension. I.e.
On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 13:08 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 20 février 2009 à 15:21 +, Alexander Larsson a écrit :
However, I do agree that it is a bit bad that you can be a target of an
attack like this without really being able to realize it. So, my current
plan is
Its true that all of these *could* and *should* mark the file as
executable, however since we never demanded that before this would be a
regression for many users. Both for old created desktop files and for
new ones created by non-updated apps.
Why is this a problem ?
- You can chmod the
Untrusted application launcher
The file %s is an application launcher, but it is not marked trusted.
If you recieved this file from an unknown source or did not expect it
to be an application launcher it may be unsafe to launch.
[_Launch anyway] [Mark as _Trusted] [[Cancel]]
I
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 16:42 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le vendredi 20 février 2009, à 15:21 +, Alexander Larsson a écrit :
So, there has been a lot of attention on the internets recently about
the the desktop file virus issue.
/me hadn't noticed. But there were a few threads on xdg
Alexander Larsson wrote:
So, there has been a lot of attention on the internets recently about
the the desktop file virus issue.
I think its all pretty overblown, and any solution we have that doesn't
completely neuter the feature will just involve users learning to work
around the issue in
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Dan Winship d...@gnome.org wrote:
Alexander Larsson wrote:
So, there has been a lot of attention on the internets recently about
the the desktop file virus issue.
I think its all pretty overblown, and any solution we have that doesn't
completely neuter the
19 matches
Mail list logo
