Your message dated Sun, 2 Oct 2005 02:50:53 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line libpam-modules: /etc/security/limits.conf has mode 0644
contradicting limits.conf(5)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 30 Apr 2004 08:16:01 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Apr 30 01:16:01 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from dhcp-76-215.uni-paderborn.de (johannes.sipsolutions.com)
[131.234.76.215] (foobar)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1BJTBh-0006rW-00; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 01:16:01 -0700
Received: by johannes.sipsolutions.com (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 6993B1511784; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:37:19 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Johannes Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: libpam-modules: /etc/security/limits.conf has mode 0644 contradicting
limits.conf(5)
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.58
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:37:18 +0200
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 1
Package: libpam-modules
Version: 0.76-19
Severity: normal
The limits.conf(5) man page contained in the passwd package states:
"The limits.conf file (/etc/security/limits.conf) describes the
resource limits you wish to impose.
It should be owned by root and readable by root account only."
Contradicting to this, the file /etc/security/limits.conf shipped with
this package has mode 0644 instead of 0600. Clearly, this is inconsistent.
I have to admit that I don't know which is right, so if 0644 is right
you probably want to move this bug as a doc bug against the passwd package.
Regards,
Johannes Berg
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (400, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.3
Locale: LANG=C, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ignored: LC_ALL set to en_US)
Versions of packages libpam-modules depends on:
ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-12 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii libcap1 1:1.10-14 support for getting/setting POSIX.
ii libdb3 3.2.9-19 Berkeley v3 Database Libraries [ru
ii libpam0g 0.76-19 Pluggable Authentication Modules l
-- no debconf information
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 246656-done) by bugs.debian.org; 2 Oct 2005 09:50:54 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Oct 02 02:50:53 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from dsl093-039-086.pdx1.dsl.speakeasy.net (tennyson.dodds.net)
[66.93.39.86]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1EM0Uf-0004mY-00; Sun, 02 Oct 2005 02:50:53 -0700
Received: by tennyson.dodds.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 371657014; Sun, 2 Oct 2005 02:50:53 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 02:50:53 -0700
From: Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: libpam-modules: /etc/security/limits.conf has mode 0644
contradicting limits.conf(5)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Fba/0zbH8Xs+Fj9o"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
--Fba/0zbH8Xs+Fj9o
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Johannes,
> The limits.conf(5) man page contained in the passwd package states:
> "The limits.conf file (/etc/security/limits.conf) describes the=20
> resource limits you wish to impose.
> It should be owned by root and readable by root account only."
Well, this bug has fixed itself because the passwd package in unstable no
longer provides a limits.conf(5) manpage. (It shouldn't have anyway, since
passwd was not the package which provided /etc/security/limits.conf.) As
there is no longer a conflict with the documentation, I think this bug can
be closed.
If someone has a compelling reason why limits.conf *should* be mode 0600,
they can reopen this report; however, I don't see any security reason why
limits.conf should be root-only, just some administrative reasons why one
might want it to be root-only, so under Debian policy this means the
permissions should default to 0644.
Thanks,
--=20
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
--Fba/0zbH8Xs+Fj9o
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDP619KN6ufymYLloRAmvqAKCsjha1olXkxS3dXIyZBwUxwcpV9gCffWUd
kgt6q6/U3fBehROn2qb8X64=
=sSz8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Fba/0zbH8Xs+Fj9o--
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
