| 1 |
On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 05:53:47AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 4:45 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > El mié, 07-01-2015 a las 19:19 -0500, Jonathan Callen escribió: |
| 4 |
> > [...] |
| 5 |
> >> The only reason there is a security issue with nethack (and other |
| 6 |
> >> games like it) on Gentoo, and only on Gentoo, is that the games team |
| 7 |
> >> policy requires that all games have permissions 0750, with group |
| 8 |
> >> "games", and all users that should be allowed to run games be in the |
| 9 |
> >> "games" group. Nethack expects that it have permissions 2755 (or |
| 10 |
> >> 2711), with group "games" and that *no* users are members of that |
| 11 |
> >> group, so it can securely save files that are accessible to all users |
| 12 |
> >> during gameplay ("bones" files) and ensure that the user cannot |
| 13 |
> >> access/change their current save file. These two expectations are |
| 14 |
> >> incompatible with each other, and end up creating a security issue |
| 15 |
> >> that upstream would never expect (as no users can be in the "games" |
| 16 |
> >> group traditionally). |
| 17 |
> >> |
| 18 |
> >> |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > If I don't misremember Council allowed finally people to not be mandated |
| 21 |
> > by that "games team" policies and, then, I guess that could finally |
| 22 |
> > allow to drop that security issue no? :/ |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> This is correct, if the maintainer wishes. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Rich is correct, maintainers are no longer bound by the games team |
| 28 |
policy. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Since this is a popular game, I urge someone to take it over and fix the |
| 31 |
issue. If I were taking it over, I would immediately look into rewriting |
| 32 |
the ebuild to not use games.eclass. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
William |
Archives