On +2022-05-21 00:19:06 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Toggle quote (20 lines)
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> skribis:
> > The installer built from:
> > Generation 214 May 02 2022 21:44:14 (current)
> > repository URL: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guix.git
> > commit: 6b588da368c77cde82ea2f22ca315116228777ad
> > … adds an unprivileged “root” account to the ‘users’ section of the OS
> Fixed in 48c748226e2a94d2dec9bfdf84601455f00d6f5e, which reverts
> c2125e59d0774cda3e559adeb056459a5f23586b.
Toggle snippet (11 lines)
commit 48c748226e2a94d2dec9bfdf84601455f00d6f5e
Author: Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org>
Date: Fri May 20 20:41:02 2022 +0200
Revert "installer: user: Remove useless filtering."
This reverts commit c2125e59d0774cda3e559adeb056459a5f23586b.
Fixes <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/55361>.
Assuming my date-diff hack worked:
Is this like coming home from 46day vacation and noticing
that, oops, someone left the kitchen door open,
and hoping no ++ungoodniks noticed? Or meh?
Is. or should there be, a required signoff on an
exploitability assessment in the commit, when it
has that scent? (e.g. anything possibly opening
a door to root privilges).
Personally, I am happy to see "fixed," but I would be happier
seeing a signed exploitability assessment, esp if by someone
concentrating on that aspect of things.