vidalia 0.2.15-1 is not able to start tor without root priviledges
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
tor (Ubuntu) |
Invalid
|
Undecided
|
Unassigned | ||
vidalia (Ubuntu) |
Won't Fix
|
Undecided
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
Iǘe just installed vidalia and tried to start it with simpe user rights, which is allowed to start vidalia during istallation/
Thats not working and the vidalia log says:
Jan 04 12:45:00.705 [Hinweis] Tor v0.2.2.35 (git-73ff13ab3c
Jan 04 12:45:00.706 [Hinweis] Initialized libevent version 2.0.16-stable using method epoll. Good.
Jan 04 12:45:00.706 [Hinweis] Opening Socks listener on 127.0.0.1:9050
Jan 04 12:45:00.706 [Warnung] Could not bind to 127.0.0.1:9050: Address already in use. Is Tor already running?
Jan 04 12:45:00.706 [Warnung] /var/run/tor is not owned by this user (user, 1000) but by debian-tor (117). Perhaps you are running Tor as the wrong user?
Jan 04 12:45:00.706 [Warnung] Before Tor can create a control socket in "/var/run/
Jan 04 12:45:00.706 [Warnung] Failed to parse/validate config: Failed to bind one of the listener ports.
Jan 04 12:45:00.706 [Fehler] Reading config failed--see warnings above.
So, starting terminal and use "sudo vidalia" works, but I feel a bit unhappy with runnig tor as root.
As sudoer there are no problems with tor and port binding as far as I can see.
I wide sense this affecting security. I going to enable the ckeckbox for this.
ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 12.04
Package: vidalia 0.2.15-1
ProcVersionSign
Uname: Linux 3.2.0-7-generic x86_64
ApportVersion: 1.90-0ubuntu1
Architecture: amd64
Date: Wed Jan 4 12:52:31 2012
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 11.10 "Oneiric Ocelot" - Release amd64 (20111012)
SourcePackage: vidalia
UpgradeStatus: Upgraded to precise on 2011-12-31 (3 days ago)
Changed in vidalia (Ubuntu): | |
status: | Confirmed → Won't Fix |
Thanks for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make Ubuntu better. We appreciate the difficulties you are facing, but this appears to be a "regular" (non-security) bug. I have unmarked it as a security issue since this bug does not show evidence of allowing attackers to cross privilege boundaries nor directly cause loss of data/privacy. Please feel free to report any other bugs you may find.