hpklett at hotmail.com
Wed Mar 15 22:13:29 EET 2006
Waldo Bastian wrote:
>This isn't about executable bits but about not executing binary program files.
"binary" Does that include e.g. python scripts?
>I will adjust the wording to make this more clear.
Thanks for all your great work.
>On Tuesday 14 March 2006 11:22, Peter wrote:
>>I have a concern about autoopen in the autostart-spec. I'll start with
>>The relative path MUST NOT point to an executable file. ... If the
>>relative path points to an executable file then the desktop environment
>>MUST NOT execute the file.
>>I don't know exactly how Windows-free you guys are, but consider if
>>someone wants a cross-platform medium of some kind. They would
>>certainly want Windows to read it, and Windows formats often don't have
>>executable bits. These mediums get mounted with EVERY file marked
>>executable, at least on every Unix (which pretty much means Linux ;)
>>I've tried it with. Seeing as though this part of the spec is most
>>foreseeably useful for cdroms, I'll point you to something I did a quick
>>So far this is sapping the spec of its usefulness. I did a search in
>>the archives, and someone else seemed to mention that directories are
>>also valid candidates for autoopen. I agree.
>>I understand that this is a matter of security; however, I would suggest
>>that the execute bit be explicitly ignored. Hopefully this wouldn't
>>result in kludgey vfs work-arounds. On that note, I'll again quote the
>>When an Autoopen file has been detected and the user has confirmed that
>>the file indicated in the Autoopen file should be opened then the file
>>indicated in the Autoopen file MUST be opened in the application
>>normally preferred by the user for files of its kind UNLESS the user
>>This implies that the user "MUST" be prompted (shouldn't this be
>>explicit to avoid mis-interpretations?) and be given the same
>>responsibility one requires when opening any media, visiting any
>>website, or otherwise using one's computer. This seems simple enough to
>>me. Removing the execute bit and prompting the user will give the same
>>level of security that would otherwise be given without the execute bit
>>in the first place.
>>Hopefully I haven't wasted your time with something that has been
>>xdg mailing list
>>xdg at lists.freedesktop.org
>xdg mailing list
>xdg at lists.freedesktop.org
More information about the xdg