RFC: Autostart spec, first draft

seventh guardian seventhguardian_ at hotmail.com
Sat Jul 9 23:06:14 EEST 2005

>From: "John (J5) Palmieri" <johnp at redhat.com>
>To: Perry Lorier <perry at coders.net>
>CC: xdg at lists.freedesktop.org
>Subject: Re: RFC: Autostart spec, first draft
>Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 11:55:46 -0400
>On Sat, 2005-07-09 at 15:33 +1200, Perry Lorier wrote:
> > A) It shouldn't automatically run as me (because it's not my usb memory
> > stick plugged in)
> > B) It shouldn't run as me because the screensaver is locked which means
> > I have implicitly said that any I/O from that session should be ignored
> > until my password is entered.
> > C) It shouldn't run off the FAT filesystem because the administrator has
> > deliberately set filesystems that don't contain +x permission flags to
> > not mount with files +x.
> > D) It shouldn't run even if the filesystem does support execute
> > permissions because the filesystem is mounted nosuid,noexec.
> >
> > I come back to my computer, there is no longer any usb devices plugged
> > in, my computer is still locked and logged in as me, what evidence do I
> > have that my assignment has been stolen?
>It actually still needs user interaction.  Part of the spec specifies
>autorun scripts must pop up a dialog to ask if the user wishes to run
>the script.
>BTW I think there are a couple of arguments going on here and they are
>getting a bit merged into one another:
>1) should we have an exec bit on desktop files in the autostart director
>in the the users home directory
>2) should we have an exec bit for autorun scripts on removable media?
>3) should we allow an autorun.desktop file to also be parsed and run on
>removable media
>My options:
>1) is not so clear (a.k.a. I really don't care)
>2) most definitely, why break traditional Unix paradigms when you don't
>have to?  It is a script, scripts have an executable bit when not set
>you would have to run indirectly.  We are not in the business of getting
>around or ignoring established security protocol.
>3) I don't think so.  Complicates things a bit if we allow this.

So why not spec right away the desktop autostart part (after deciding what 
would happen to the -x part), and leave media autorun for another spec or 
even a revision of this spec? Let's not delay the implementation of 
something already agreed.

Also, I challenge kde or gnome (or any other) to implement a working media 
autotart module/plugin, so that it gets tested "in the field". Then, we 
could say "this worked and that didn't", and not just a bunch of loose ideas 
about what it would be.

>John (J5) Palmieri <johnp at redhat.com>
>xdg mailing list
>xdg at lists.freedesktop.org

MSN Busca: fácil, rápido, direto ao ponto.  http://search.msn.com.br

More information about the xdg mailing list