It was reported that perl-Proc-Daemon, when instructed to write a pid file, does that with a umask set to 0, so the pid file ends up with mode 666. This might be a security issue. References: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=732283
Created perl-Proc-Daemon tracking bugs for this issue: Affects: fedora-all [bug 1043875] Affects: epel-all [bug 1043876]
Created attachment 837641 [details] Patch for this vulnerability. This patch was given on the debian page, seems to fix the issue.
CVE Request: http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2013/q4/512
perl-Proc-Daemon-0.14-9.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
perl-Proc-Daemon-0.14-9.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
perl-Proc-Daemon-0.14-9.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
perl-Proc-Daemon-0.14-9.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
perl-Proc-Daemon-0.14-9.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
While RHN Satellite ships perl-Proc-Daemon, you need to have local access in order to take advantage of this flaw and a typical Satellite server installation will not permit local or shell access to untrusted users.
Created attachment 973101 [details] Patch to restore umask after pid file is created
While the patch from Debian fixes the security issue, it makes unreadable for other users all other files created by a daemon, what is unwanted in some cases. Attached patch fixes this problem. It would be great if it could be applied to the package.
@pavel, this bug is closed. Plase consider submitting your patch "upstream" first.
Remi, I've just submitted my patch to upstream bug tracker. Upstream doesn't seem to be active (no releases in 3+ years), so I don't expect it to be applied anytime soon. Should I open a separate bug here to include the patch to the package?