Respect file permission

$ ls -l test1.png
-rw-------. 1 finn finn 278088 Sep 14 04:12 test1.png

$ mat2 test1.png
$ ls -l test1*
-rw-r--r--. 1 finn finn 278091 Sep 14 04:14 test1.cleaned.png
-rw-------. 1 finn finn 278088 Sep 14 04:12 test1.png

Is it expected behavior? Shouldn't test1.cleaned.png also have same file permission as test1.png (i.e. 600 instead of 644)?

What is your umask?

$ umask
0022

Seems like mat2 creates a new copy of file that's why cleaned file has same permission as newly created file in the system. I was wondering, shouldn't mat2 change the file permission of cleaned file to same as original file after cleaning process is done?

PS: This may be lead to a problem where I want to have a file which is only readable and writable by owner (i.e. having 600 permission) but, cleaned copy of the file is also readable to group and anyone due having 644 permission.

IMHO, it should respect the umask. (Probably, that's worth documenting.)

Let's suppose I've a secret document (secret.pdf) with 600 (-rw-------) file permission and I run mat2 secret.pdf command after that one cleaned file (secret.cleaned.pdf) will be created with 644 (-rw-r--r--) file permission if umask is 0022 which is default value for many distro. Now, this secret document can be read by anyone which neither I or anybody wants. Doesn't it lead to a problem where we make user's secret document to readable by everyone? @georg, what do you think? This could lead to more severe problem in upcoming release where we're replacing original file with cleaned copy and add suffix .bak to original file (#117). Anyway, all of the copying command (like cp, rsync etc) in *nix respects file permission not umask and in end of the day we're creating a copy of file with no harmful metadata.

I'm not sure about this, I would like to have other people's opinion.

@smagnin, @jfriedli, @atenart ?

changed milestone to %1.0 - Pony

added question security usability labels

I've checked different tools, some respect file permission, some do not, and rely on umask. Considering the nature of mat2, and what this tool is used for, I guess applying "sane defaults" makes sense, that is, respect file permissions. (I'm revoking my note posted earlier in this thread.)

I support @georg latest answer

added good first issue label

Done in 4034cf9a

closed