pan-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: {FILENAME} [Pan-users] Re: Save attachment file permissions


From: Paul Crawford (at UoD)
Subject: Re: {FILENAME} [Pan-users] Re: Save attachment file permissions
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:01:56 +0000
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)

Dear Duncan,
After finding the group and then the thread, then confirming the right post, I downloaded (to cache, my default download action) it, then when it was all in cache, hit save, and selected save both text and attachments, since I wanted to investigate what on the raw message contains if the attachment should prove to save with the executable bit set while other messages don't.

Resulting permissions on the executable:

0750 -rwxr-x---

OK, the permissions honor umask (0027), but the executable bit is set if allowed. Hmm...

That agrees with what I saw, but I have umask = 022 hence chmod=755 in my case.

But we still don't know whether it's pan itself, or simply something in gtk that pan doesn't overrule (what I expect, I still see no reason for pan to manage permissions itself, but if GTK is doing it by default... or it could be another library), or perhaps something in the desktop environment (KDE) or something else not yet known.

Meanwhile, taking a look at the raw message...

I posted earlier (seems to never have arrived) that looking at the non-decoded yEnc message (e.g. Thunderbird) there is a line with "begin 755 something.avi.exe" so I suspect that the yEnc decoder might be honouring (foolishly) such a mask.

I have no idea if Pan relies on its own code to write the decoded attachment, or if that is handled by some yEnc decoding library. Any ideas folks?

Interesting, headers indicate Giganews as the originating news server, and they don't seem to be forged since the path indicates a direct giganews > highwinds-media (my ISP's outsourced news provider) handoff... unless it's from highwinds-media itself, which would need more verification to know for sure, but it looks authentic. I wonder if anyone's notified address@hidden yet? They're pretty good nettizens and as such will probably yank his account, whoever it was.

I suspect there are quite a few of such malicious posts.

My reason for being curious in the first place was my search for a good system (newsreader included) that would not open up virus holes for friends & family, hence my trials of Ubuntu and Pan, etc.

Being a touch paranoid, I tested what happens and here we are!

Regards,
Paul





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]