Lennart Regebro wrote:

> I get this message when starting Zope 2.5.1b1 on Windows 98:

No you didn't, you got it on the trunk.  I just double-checked.  My big 
security patch was never checked in on the 2.5 branch.

> 2002-03-18T19:32:15 INFO(0) z2 Your umask of 000 may be too permissive; for
> the
> security of your Zope data, it is recommended you use 077
> That's rather silly on Windows 98. :-)

I agree.  I noticed this over the weekend and am testing a few more 
scenarios.  I mistakenly assumed that os.umask wouldn't exist on 
non-POSIX systems, so the try: block would cover it.  But instead, 
os.umask says 0.

> A couple of questions:
> - Should that really be 077? That means that the owner can't read the files,
> but that "other" can! How can that be less permissive? 770 would make sense
> to me. I usually run z2.py with -u zope, and have zope own the files, and
> letting nobody else do scrap with them, 700, in other words. WHy would 077
> be better?

First, if you don't start the number with 0, it's not octal.

Second, you are confusing umasks with modes.  When you create a file on 
UNIX its modes are 0666 & umask, directory 0777 & umask.  Thus, creating 
a file with umask 077 results in mode 0600 (read/write only for owner). 
  The default UNIX umask is 022, which results in a Data.fs that is 
readable by all.  You can twiddle permissions on it, sure, but it'll 
turn up readable by all again when you pack the database.

> - Is it silly to check for Windows? What happens on Windows NT, does that
> emulate umask somehow, or do you get 000 there too?

Yes, but it's not silly to check for os.name == 'posix', which I will 
fix on my own time later, prob. tonight.

Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to