<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/strict.dtd"><html><head><meta name="qrichtext" content="1" /><style type="text/css">p, li { white-space: pre-wrap; }</style></head><body style=" font-family:'Droid Sans Mono'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal;">On Sunday 22 February 2009, Roland Harnau wrote:<br>
> 2009/2/11 Alexander Neundorf <neundorf@kde.org>:<br>
> > here's an article and comments about potential security problems<br>
> > with "executing" .desktop files although they are not executable:<br>
> > http://lwn.net/Articles/318755/<br>
><br>
> Perhaps I'm a bit late, but I think the whole idea is rather dubious.<br>
> A .desktop file is executable if and only if it contains a (vaild)<br>
> Exec key, and according to the Desktop Entry Specification this key is<br>
> not required (e.g. .desktop files for Plasmoids do not contain them).<br>
> They simply don't fit in the classical UNIX permission scheme.<br>
<p style="-qt-paragraph-type:empty; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px; -qt-user-state:0;"><br></p>The subset of .desktop files with a valid Exec= key on the other hand certainly should fit within that scheme however.<br>
<p style="-qt-paragraph-type:empty; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px; -qt-user-state:0;"><br></p>Regards,<br>
- Michael Pyne</p></body></html>