Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!

Bug 567750

Summary: /etc/profile umask
Product: Gentoo Linux Reporter: Mark <chaseguard>
Component: [OLD] Core systemAssignee: Gentoo Linux bug wranglers <bug-wranglers>
Status: RESOLVED INVALID    
Severity: normal    
Priority: Normal    
Version: unspecified   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---

Description Mark 2015-12-08 01:57:01 UTC
In an attempt to harden my system, I implemented a lynis suggestion:


            Performing test ID AUTH-9328 (Default umask values)
[03:13:53] Test: Checking /etc/profile
[03:13:53] Result: file /etc/profile exists
[03:13:53] Test: Checking umask value in /etc/profile
[03:13:53] Result: found umask (prefixed with spaces)
[03:13:53] Result: found umask 022, which could be more strict
[03:13:53] Suggestion: Default umask in /etc/profile could be more strict like 027 [AUTH-9328]
[03:13:53] Hardening: assigned 0 hardening points (max for this item: 2), current: 11, total: 18             

And changed the /etc/profile umask from 022 to 027.

Weeks later, I recompiled my kernel to add a module.  I then found that the major external modules nvidia-drivers (ZFS related and virtualbox) would not compile.  The nvidia-driver message is:

test -e include/generated/autoconf.h -a -e include/config/auto.conf || (\
000041 echo >&2;\
000042 echo >&2 "  ERROR: Kernel configuration is invalid.";\
000043 echo >&2 "         include/generated/autoconf.h or include/config/auto.conf are missing.";\
000044 echo >&2 "         Run 'make oldconfig && make prepare' on kernel src to fix it.";\
000045 echo >&2 ;\                                                                                  
After resetting those two file permissions, nvidia-drivers compiled a little further until it issues another warning about a file it could not read.

I hate to waist dev time, but is this some kind of bug, or am I messing up? Alternatively, do I need to take additional steps (sandbox issue) to work around the a tighter umask?

I did a web search/bug search by the way. 

 
  

Reproducible: Always
Comment 1 Tomáš Mózes 2015-12-08 06:33:43 UTC
Hello Mark. From first view it seems like portage user didn't have access to /usr/src and thus it failed.

The suggestion says, that it "could be more strict". But as I see you are doing it on a workstation. If you really want more security, I would recommend trying out Selinux or something similar.