Re: [RFC] User Accesable Filesystem Hierarchy Standard

>From: Zackary Deems <zdeems-/[email protected]>
>Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 19:22:25 -0800 (PST)
>
>The only systems where a vanilla user can install
>software outside of his home directory, are ones which
>have been specifically modified to do so.  There
>absolutely ARE safeguards against it in standard
>*nix.. namely an outright inability for any non-root
>users to write to system directories.  To allow them
>that sort of access is a serious breach of system
>security.  It doesn't matter if this is a home desktop
>or a server.

Those are safeguards against editing system directories, not against 
installing programs. A program does not need to be in a system directory to 
be installed. This standard also prevents installation to system 
directories. It allows the installation of private programs inside of a home 
directory and shared in /home/shared. Neither of these are system 
directories. I see a security advantage in that a program can be installed 
without the user ever touching any system directories. I do not see a 
security flaw. Could you please explain further what I am missing in this 
regard.

>Gary pointed out that the usage of ~/ in the
>specification was a mistake, and assured me that
>nothing would be stored in users' home directories.  I
>still believe that any specification which calls for
>sharing access to files under a user's home directory
>is significantly flawed.  If you're going to create a
>'shared' folder, create ONE folder under your
>/home/shared where each user has his own writeable
>directory in which users may place files they wish to
>share.

The standard specifically calls for users' home directories to not be 
shared. The files in a home directory are for users to install private 
programs (something they don't want other users to have access to, in case 
they want to have a different version, whatever). The standard does call for 
one /home/shared directory which is rwx for all users.

>
>I also fail to see the necessity of using dotted
>directories for this.  If you have a 'userland root'
>scenario which contains ONLY user installed programs,
>and a 'shared area', I'm not sure I see the need for
>any hidden directories.

The purpose is that nobody really wants to see the actual program files very 
often. On every Linux system that I know of, all installed programs are 
meant to be managed through a package manager. This method prevents 
inexperienced users from accidentally messing something up, but does nothing 
to prevent serious users from doing what they want to.

> > > point being, rather than creating 300 ~/.etc
> > > directories (1 for each of 300 theoretical users),
> > > let's create ONE /usr/root/etc that's rwx for all
>300.
> > >  In the end, you're asking for the traditional
> > > problems of multiple users overwriting each
>others'
> > > changes.. but apparently this is more desirable
>than
> > > the current situation.
> >
> > This allows them to have a private area for things
>that they want to keep
> > private and a public area for things they wish to
>keep public.
>
>If you don't change the purpose of a user's home
>directory, then anything IN that directory is private,
>as is intended in *nix.
>
> >
> > The other reason for placing this into /home/shared/
>is to extend the
> > ability of users to share files locally on home
>systems.
> >
>
>Placing the new 'root' in /home/shared is
>theoretically fine, though I tend to disagree with
>Gary as to whether this belongs here or elsewhere.
>But it seems like you're using /home/shared and ~/
>stuff interchangeably.

~/ and /home/shared/ are not being used interchangeably, they are both being 
used separately. One allows for private installs, the other allows for 
shared installs. The advantage of a private install is that no-one else can 
uninstall it. The advantage of a shared install is that everyone else can 
use it. This is why both would exist.

>The specification as Gary
>described it to me last night is significantly
>different than the one discussed in your RFC.

Please explain how it is different. So far, everything you have requested 
seems in line with the spec, but you have been construing the spec as being 
different. I would like to understand where my explanation is being 
misunderstood so that I can clarify it.

>I can get behind a scenario where everything is
>installed under this new 'root', and I'd be happy to
>participate in discussions regarding the specifics of
>making it work..  but I balk at supporting the current
>documented specification making use of ~/ for a shared environment.

Not everything should be installed to that new section. The purpose is 
partly that newly installed programs won't need to be installed into the 
main system. This should, to some extent, prevent malware and trojans from 
messing with system files because they can be installed without ever gaining 
access to system files. Also, it means people really don't need to mess with 
the root system as often. However, many things still should be made root 
installs.

_________________________________________________________________
Free up your inbox with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage. Multiple plans available. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmail/es2&ST=1/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/