On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 12:47:05PM -0000, Arnaud Quette wrote: > you're right that the double check is too much, and only due to legacy and > not enough time to make 100 % clean things (that's really a minor point).
Actually, what I question is whether the content check is worth doing. But perhaps I've misunderstood what it's working with: for some reason, possibly from examining the file from the recovery shell while I was trying to figure out what was wrong, I have the impression it's just some obvious text (don't recall what at this time). So I can't see how this is could be thought to be secure. Perhaps there are plans to make it less easily spoofable down the road? > relying only on "upsmon -K" is sufficient, since it looks itself for the > POWERDOWNFLAG existence *and* validity. the validity (magic string) test is > harnessing the UPS poweroff, thus telling *securely* if we need to issue an > UPS poweroff (upsdrvctl shutdown). not doing that can lead to security > breach... An intruder who can create a file in /etc has already compromised the system, and can do much more interesting things than forcing a UPS shutdown, yes? -- NUT fails to shutdown UPS https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/381269 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to nut in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
