http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/item/6106/
Then I found out, that it could access all MY private data files in MY home directory.

Please fix it so that other users cannot read the home directories of other people. This is a breech of privacy.

[656 votes] Solution #1: Auto-generated solution of idea #6106


[11 votes] Solution #2: Create a separate shared folder all users can access with read-write permissions


[2 votes] Solution #3: Create a "Private" folder inside each user's home to respect privacy


]]> en-us Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:57:18 +0000 Sun, 23 Jan 2011 14:56:32 +0000 QAPoll module http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/6106/
chmod 750 -R /home/tbh/
chown tbh:tbh -R /home/tbh

and nobody except root can not access my personal data.

This do not neet fix. It need thinking.]]> Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:37:30 +0000 Sun, 30 Mar 2008 20:05:43 +0000 Sun, 30 Mar 2008 20:35:52 +0000 properties > permissions. Then change "Others" permissions to none then "Apply permissions to enclosed files"]]> Sun, 30 Mar 2008 20:37:11 +0000 http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/5287/
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/6111/]]> Sun, 30 Mar 2008 20:38:30 +0000 It should be secure by default.
People told me that Linux is secure.
I assumed it was.
I shouldn't have to secure it manually...]]> Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:05:07 +0000
Privacy and security are unrelated topics, you are mostly talking about letting someone with access to your computer and expecting him not to find stuff, even if home was invisible by default, the guy would be able to access your stuff using the recovery mode or by inserting a live cd.

The most secure system is not going to protect you about a guy having physical access to your computer.]]> Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:22:43 +0000 Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:24:08 +0000
The system should assume that anything in MY home directory were private files.]]> Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:30:43 +0000
AFAIK, Windows (XP) does this as well. You can refine the so called 'security' for each file. Linux, just has a better way of preforming the same task.]]> Sun, 30 Mar 2008 23:40:08 +0000 As far as I know, when using Windows XP together with NTFS, you cannot access other peoples data from their accounts.]]> Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:23:02 +0000 As vexorian said, this is not a security issue, its a privacy thing. Considering Ubuntu is a desktop OS, the only people able to access it are people you allow, so I dont think ubuntu should hide anything unless told to.]]> Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:18:35 +0000 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 06:28:35 +0000 I think privacy and security, while not the same thing, goes hand-in-hand. There are no privacy category, so I picked security.
Just because I allow someone to use my computer, does not mean I want them looking through all my personal stuff.

alberge204,
We shouldn't justify a faulty behavior on the basis that "hey, they are doing it too".
This behavior is wrong, and should be fixed. Yes, it is easy to fix (for those people aware of the problem), but it should be secure by default.]]> Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:49:20 +0000 I think you remember wrong. Although in XP there is the option to restrict your home directory (or any other), it isn't enabled by default.

I don't know what would be the better way for most people.
For me, the actual default is OK.

Maybe it would be a solution, if you can decide through the installation process.]]> Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:47:09 +0000 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:16:31 +0000 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:26:51 +0000
Frankly I think this is the right way to do things; If you put something inside your house(computer) all other members of your family(who live in the same house/use the same computer) will be able to access it, unless you put a lock on it(change the default permissions)

Privacy and Security do not go hand in hand, but through security bugs your privacy can often be compromised. This is not the case though, nobody online(unless he knows your password and you got something like SSH installed) can get to your files.

And the reason you got a password protected account is to prevent anyone from MODIFYING or DELETING those files in your home folder.

I hope this clears it up, if this is such a big issue perhaps the installer should ask "oh users on the same machine can access your files, do you need more privacy?" Although I hope we get an "expert" installation mode where this kind of question is just left out, there is a limit to how much hand holding a user can tolorate.]]> Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:56:33 +0000 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:59:02 +0000
The word "assume" has been used/implied several times in this discussion, e.g.:

"I assumed [Linux was secure]."
"The system should assume that anything in MY home directory were private files."
"This is unexpected behavior..."

Unexpected? Let's take a moment to look at OpenBSD, one of the (if not *THE*) most secure Unix systems available today. According to http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=umask&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=OpenBSD+Current&arch=i386&format=html the default umask in OpenBSD is 022: only write permission is withheld from other users.

We should remember that "other" users includes system users like daemon, bin, sys, lp, gdm, and mysql. If you lock down your entire home directory, you may lose the ability to read your own configuration files or run some programs.

If you remove read and execute permission from your home directory, then other users cannot even find the files you *want* them to be able to read unless they know the exact full pathname.

If you have data that is truly private, it is up to *YOU* to mark it as private--even encrypting it if necessary.
]]> Tue, 01 Apr 2008 11:55:47 +0000 Ubuntu is a debian derivate.
Ubuntu chose that way, so that is no no mishappen.

But in my opinion it is very bad to, so i vote for security.
Anyone could change his home dir readable if he wants.
But it does not comply with Ubuntus "no default open ports" philosophy.

]]> Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:24:57 +0000
"people will be crying because no one can share their files with their family"

And people will be crying because their family found those files they didn't want others to see.

Either statement is not a valid one to build a system default from, even if they were both true.

"Secure by default" is, though.

See also articles like this: http://www.bestsecuritytips.com/news+article.storyid+245.htm

From the article, "Always chose carefully the folders and files which you intend to share ...". That article refers to p2p file sharing, but the general principle of not sharing with (potentially) untrusted other people applies here.]]> Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:52:53 +0000 The first with full access to the owner, restricted access to the group, and no access to the others (so a 027 Umask).
The second would just be adding rights to the others (022).
New users would just have to ask themselves if they want or not to share their files to know where they have to put them.
/home/[user]/ or /home/[user]/shared/]]> Sat, 05 Apr 2008 14:19:15 +0000 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 23:01:22 +0000 should the home directory be home readable ?
you could check yes/no.
(At least it was in the debian and ubuntu text installer).
Where did it go ?
It should be restored if it's gone.]]> Thu, 10 Apr 2008 08:30:25 +0000 should the home directory be WORLD readable.
sorry]]> Thu, 10 Apr 2008 08:31:03 +0000 I think the "secure by default" policy should imply privacy between non-privileged user accounts. Perhaps have a "Shared Files" folder for each account that is open to the other users.]]> Sat, 19 Apr 2008 10:44:01 +0000 What if because of a security hole, a remote user gains access to the guest account and get your files ?
Stolen informations can be worse than lost informations.]]> Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:42:06 +0000 Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:44:19 +0000
Sometimes Ubuntu deviates in very questionable ways.


By default the only person who should be able to read a user's files is that user. They can always change it if they want to give access to others.]]> Sat, 03 May 2008 14:12:37 +0000 Thu, 08 May 2008 21:00:26 +0000
What is needed is for the homedir to be set 0751.]]> Fri, 09 May 2008 14:39:13 +0000 Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:49:14 +0000
]]> Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:23:00 +0000
(actually... the security wizard seems like a nice idea for upgraders where new ideas on security setups could tighten up their setup)

In terms of allowing other users access (frustration around that) I think the /home/shared folder is a good idea as well.

For parents or others that feel they should have full access to another users home directory... add to Nautilus that when you hit an "access denied" that it give you the option of entering your (or the administrator) password to change the security on that folder [since it is the logical next action]]]> Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:43:50 +0000 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:50:14 +0000
Why not make the /home/user directory with access rights and a sub directory like /home/user/documents completely private ?
Or perhaps, a default encrypted directory called "the vault".

Or make a kind of "non user" or shared /home containing the music and everything.

And changing the privacy is so not a big deal with the "properties" menu !]]> Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:30:56 +0000 Sun, 14 Sep 2008 08:16:35 +0000 Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:00:26 +0000
I found Ubuntu uses the Debian umask of 022, but I can change that to something like 027 (~/.profile)... so then I'm good, right? ...well, now I find out that my Gnome/KDE file managers will still create with 022, so I change the /etc/login.defs umask value (or is that only for *new* logins?)... but no go... so I changed the rights...

chmod -R o-rwx /home
chmod 755 /home

that gave me the 750 permissions in the individual home dirs that I wanted, but Nautilus still saves as 755/644 (umask 022)! I finally fixed it by changing the umask in the global profile (/etc/profile), and now it works.

I know I probably did a step I didn't have to, but hopefully that helps someone that doesn't want the "you can view anyone's files except for root" filesystem.

:)]]> Sun, 21 Dec 2008 08:54:19 +0000
I think default umask 022 is ok, because group users can read, if they are in the same group like the owner.]]> Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:16:46 +0000
Not so easy for a linux noob to understand all that permission stuff :)

Something like the mac os would of course nice for users like me...]]> Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:06:04 +0000
So i have to set the new user folder to 700 to restrict other users access to this folder.]]> Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:04:12 +0000
It seems that this issue has been abandoned but I'm nearly having a nervous breakdown about it.

Having Home folders readable by any user on the box is completely insane. To tout Ubuntu as 'Secure by design' and release it in this state beggars belief.

Plainly Home folders should be readable *only* by the owner. Shared folders should be clearly marked as such.

This is a matter of security and privacy. It should be fixed as a matter of priority.

Simon]]> Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:18:26 +0000
Or do it the way Windows and Mac do, which is actually the correct way: make it so users cannot read each other's files, and then have a separate shared folder where shared content be put and accessed by all users.]]> Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:41:40 +0000 Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:34:00 +0000