requiring .desktop files to be executable ?

[Matthew Woehlke]

David Faure wrote:
> OK, with both conditions it doesn't break the case of a FAT partition
> (where everything is owned by root *and* writable by the user).
> 
> So we arrive at the following whitelist:
>  * x-bit is set

Would dropping the "x-bit is set" allowance on filesystems where 
*everything* is executable (i.e. FAT) be unacceptable? IMO it's not very 
secure to allow it to run just because +x is set when the user can't 
/not/ have +x set. (Well, not without changing the mount options, but...)

-- 
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
-- 
We are Microsoft. What you are experiencing is not a problem; it is an 
undocumented feature. -- Unknown (from fortune's bofh-excuses)