Re: [Cooker] msec, security.conf

2002-02-23 Thread Frederic Lepied
Mattias Dahlberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 23 Feb 2002, Frederic Lepied wrote: > > > The final word about this is that you can change any setting in > > /etc/security/msec/security.conf which overrides the settings in > > /var/lib/msec/security.conf. In fact now, all the files in > > /etc

Re: [Cooker] msec, security.conf

2002-02-23 Thread Mattias Dahlberg
On 23 Feb 2002, Frederic Lepied wrote: > The final word about this is that you can change any setting in > /etc/security/msec/security.conf which overrides the settings in > /var/lib/msec/security.conf. In fact now, all the files in > /etc/security/msec will not be changed by msec. Nice. So I si

Re: [Cooker] msec, security.conf

2002-02-23 Thread Frederic Lepied
Mattias Dahlberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Borsenkow Andrej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I presume, creating file > > > > > > /usr/security/msec/level.local > > > > > > and putting there > > > > > > set_security_conf('RPM_CHECK', 'no') > > > > > > should do the trick. > > > > It needs

RE: [Cooker] msec, security.conf

2002-02-23 Thread Mattias Dahlberg
Borsenkow Andrej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I presume, creating file > > > > /usr/security/msec/level.local > > > > and putting there > > > > set_security_conf('RPM_CHECK', 'no') > > > > should do the trick. > > It needs > > from mseclib import * > set_security_conf('RPM_CHECK', 'no') > > no

Re: [Cooker] msec, security.conf

2002-02-18 Thread H.McM
> What I meant was, we need either good documentation how to customize > configuration or use simple file, not Python script (who is going to > learn Python just to customize msec)? > > Please, do not do it. > > -andrej > Couldnt agree more. I think the level.local file should take the same s

RE: [Cooker] msec, security.conf

2002-02-18 Thread Borsenkow Andrej
> You are right. In the next release, msec will not change the settings > in /etc/security/msec/security.conf except if the secure level is > changed. I do not think it is the correct way. Files that are managed by msec must be managed by msec. It must always be possible to use plain msec to make

Re: [Cooker] msec, security.conf

2002-02-16 Thread Frederic Lepied
Borsenkow Andrej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I presume, creating file > > > > /usr/security/msec/level.local > > > > and putting there > > > > set_security_conf('RPM_CHECK', 'no') > > > > should do the trick. > > It needs > > from mseclib import * > set_security_conf('RPM_CHECK', 'no'

RE: [Cooker] msec, security.conf

2002-02-15 Thread Denis Pelletier
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Borsenkow Andrej wrote: { > I presume, creating file { > { > /usr/security/msec/level.local { > { > and putting there { > { > set_security_conf('RPM_CHECK', 'no') { > { > should do the trick. { { It needs { { from mseclib import * { set_security_conf('RPM_CHECK', 'no'

RE: [Cooker] msec, security.conf

2002-02-15 Thread Borsenkow Andrej
> I presume, creating file > > /usr/security/msec/level.local > > and putting there > > set_security_conf('RPM_CHECK', 'no') > > should do the trick. It needs from mseclib import * set_security_conf('RPM_CHECK', 'no') now, THAT becomes ridiculous :( -andrej

RE: [Cooker] msec, security.conf

2002-02-15 Thread Borsenkow Andrej
> I think you need to create a file called level.local in /etc/security/msec > > In the file just add the line RPM_CHECK=no and you should be cooking with > gas. > Oh, you think so? Have you tried it? -andrej

RE: [Cooker] msec, security.conf

2002-02-15 Thread Borsenkow Andrej
> > Could someone explain me the current state of msec? The documentation > obviously does not reflect the current state of this package. > > I'm running my laptop with security level 3 but I don't want to run the > RPM_CHECK. I tought that this was easy; I changed RPM_CHECK=yes to > RPM_CHECK=

Re: [Cooker] msec, security.conf

2002-02-15 Thread H.McM
I think you need to create a file called level.local in /etc/security/msec In the file just add the line RPM_CHECK=no and you should be cooking with gas. Hamster > Hi, > > Could someone explain me the current state of msec? The documentation > obviously does not reflect the current state of