Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[feature request] systemd user timer #19

Closed
ecoutu opened this issue Jun 6, 2018 · 3 comments
Closed

[feature request] systemd user timer #19

ecoutu opened this issue Jun 6, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

@ecoutu
Copy link
Contributor

ecoutu commented Jun 6, 2018

Briefly reading through the code to pass-tomb, I see you use sudo to create systemd system timers. Is there any reason you did not consider using --user mode timers?

I believe it would also allow removing the requirement to set permissions, which uses sudo, which would entirely remove it as a dependency.

@roddhjav
Copy link
Owner

roddhjav commented Jun 6, 2018

Hi, This is not possible. The timer must be a system timer because pass close requires sudo. This is a requirement from Tomb. In the same way, pass tomb (via Tomb) also requires sudo to generate the Tomb therefore it will always remain a dependency.

@ecoutu
Copy link
Contributor Author

ecoutu commented Jun 7, 2018

I did not need to use sudo to run pass tomb, nor did I need it for pass close. If you look at my pull request, it was working on Ubuntu 18.04 (I'm running a combination of my two branches I opened P/Rs for on my local machine without issue).

Maybe I'm missing something, it could be an environment / version thing.

If you do not want to merge some form of the pull request referenced (I'm happy to add it as an argument to pass-tomb to use --user instead of --system) I'll continue to use my fork.

Thanks for your time and effort on this project. I'm using zfs with send / receive backups to rsync.net, which requires running the remote backup system in a jail / VM / not quite sure. Anyways, they have full access to your data from what I can tell. I'm so far manually encrypting the important things with gpg, but obfuscating the store / directory structure itself is something I've actually thought about - I have many accounts - the directory structure of passwords / 2fa backup codes for all of them would paint a pretty picture of who I am, on the entire web. Note: I totally trust rsync.net, I'm pretty sure they have many standards compliance in practice, but my lizard brain still mistrusts a bad actor.

@ecoutu
Copy link
Contributor Author

ecoutu commented Jun 7, 2018

Hopefully I'm not using tomb incorrectly, I will read through the docs in depth this weekend.

@ecoutu ecoutu closed this as completed Jun 27, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants