On Mi, 19 iun 19, 11:06:59, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> Hello all Debian Users,
>
> Consider the hypothetical scenario below.
Your hypothetical scenario is not relevant for what you are asking.
Context for the list:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2019/06/msg00371.html
> I often encountered
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:38:10AM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> In this hypothetical scenario, the sudoers rule is applied to ALL systems,
> including production ones, and sysadmins doesn't have proper backups.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 08:45:13AM -, Curt wrote:
> I'd just get a better
On 2019-06-25, Aidan Gauland wrote:
>>
>> In this hypothetical scenario, the sudoers rule is applied to ALL
>> systems, including production ones, and sysadmins doesn't have proper
>> backups.
> OK, not having a (good) backup system is definitely bad. You should
> always have that even if your
On 25/06/19 3:38 PM, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> On 24/06/19 06.27, Aidan Gauland wrote:
>
>> I can't really offer an opinion on whether it is dangerous without a
>> more detailed hypothetical scenario, but I would say that is
>> overbroad, and this rule should be narrowed down to only allow
>> running
On 2019-06-25 04:38, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
On 24/06/19 06.27, Aidan Gauland wrote:
I can't really offer an opinion on whether it is dangerous without a
more detailed hypothetical scenario, but I would say that is
overbroad, and this rule should be narrowed down to only allow running
certain
On 24/06/19 06.27, Aidan Gauland wrote:
I can't really offer an opinion on whether it is dangerous without a
more detailed hypothetical scenario, but I would say that is
overbroad, and this rule should be narrowed down to only allow running
certain commands via sudo as required for this group
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 12:34:36PM +1200, Richard Hector wrote:
> On 23/06/19 12:07 PM, Andy Smith wrote:
> > andy@debtest1:~$ su - bob
> > Password:
> > bob@debtest1:~$ whoami
> > bob
> > bob@debtest1:~$ sudo -i
> > [sudo] password for bob:
> > Sorry, user bob is not allowed to execute
On 23/06/19 12:07 PM, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 04:44:40PM -0700, Jimmy Johnson wrote:
>> Some one mentioned mounting drives, all that and what they need can be
>> configured.
>
> Also note that anyone who can use "mount" as root can trivially become
> root. If
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:07:12AM +, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 04:44:40PM -0700, Jimmy Johnson wrote:
> > Some one mentioned mounting drives, all that and what they need can be
> > configured.
>
> Also note that anyone who can use "mount" as root can trivially
Hello,
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 04:44:40PM -0700, Jimmy Johnson wrote:
> Some one mentioned mounting drives, all that and what they need can be
> configured.
Also note that anyone who can use "mount" as root can trivially become
root. If countenancing allowing users to run "mount" as root I would
On 06/19/2019 09:56 PM, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
That is almost as bad as having no security restrictions at all. The
correct thing to do would be to set permissions on the programs to
allow them to be run by group remaja.
What I thought that the correct way is to configure sudoers so that
remaja
On 2019-06-22, deloptes wrote:
> Brad Rogers wrote:
>
>>>Is it a TV program or a computer program?
>>
>> On TV, it's a programme.
>>
>
> thank you
In British English.
Brad Rogers wrote:
>>Is it a TV program or a computer program?
>
> On TV, it's a programme.
>
thank you
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 17:21:14 +0200
deloptes wrote:
Hello deloptes,
>Is it a TV program or a computer program?
On TV, it's a programme.
--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)radnever immediately apparent"
Well well well, you just can't tell
My
rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> I still don't understand the context -- are these teens somehow working at
> the TV station deciding which shows to be transmitted, or are these teens
> at home, viewing TV, and possibly getting the option to view TV programs
> being broadcast with the watermark that
On Saturday 22 June 2019 04:02:11 Curt wrote:
> On 2019-06-22, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >> You seem to be assuming that Mr. Banjaya is in the USA. While that
> >> is not impossible, given the Javanese name and non-USA usage of
> >> English, I suspect that it is not correct.
> >
> > Thats entirely
On Friday 21 June 2019 22:21:57 deloptes wrote:
> Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > In Indonesia, the case resemble hypothetical case in this thread,
> > where sysadmins in TV station doesn't care about least privilege
> > security principle and they gave teens full root privileges, for
> > most programs
On 6/21/19 6:35 PM, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
Carl Fink wrote:
You seem to be assuming that Mr. Banjaya is in the USA. While that is
not impossible, given the Javanese name and non-USA usage of English,
I suspect that it is not correct.
In Indonesia, the case resemble hypothetical case in this
On Saturday, June 22, 2019 04:11:56 AM Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> I don't know. Since 2013 most programs (GUI applications) there (TV
> stations systems) display watermark which stated that those are for teens
> (optionally with parental guidance). So children have to wait until 13 in
> order to fully
On Saturday, June 22, 2019 04:02:11 AM Curt wrote:
> Remaja is Javanese (derived from Indonesian,
> I think) for teenager, who apparently are a PITA world-wide,
;-)
> which is
> somehow comforting.
Well, maybe (I can see that viewpoint, it is somehow disappointing ;-)
Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Curt wrote:
>> [...] teenager, who apparently are a PITA world-wide
>
> Especially for the carbon dioxide producers. :))
Please don't start this! It is a big business and what happens is like
advertisement for it. I wouldn't say this if someone would mention the big
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 10:40:12AM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Curt wrote:
> > [...] teenager, who apparently are a PITA world-wide
>
> Especially for the carbon dioxide producers. :))
;-))
-- t
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 04:21:57AM +0200, deloptes wrote:
> Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
>
> > In Indonesia, the case resemble hypothetical case in this thread, where
> > sysadmins in TV station doesn't care about least privilege security
> > principle and they gave teens full root privileges, for most
Hi,
Curt wrote:
> [...] teenager, who apparently are a PITA world-wide
Especially for the carbon dioxide producers. :))
> which is somehow comforting.
Yeah. Our past enthusiasm did not vanish. It's just with somebody else now.
Have a nice day :)
Thomas
What a BS! This comes from Windoz for sure.
I don't know. Since 2013 most programs (GUI applications) there (TV stations
systems) display watermark which stated that
those are for teens (optionally with parental guidance). So children have to
wait until 13 in order to fully make use of
those
On 2019-06-22, Gene Heskett wrote:
>>
>> You seem to be assuming that Mr. Banjaya is in the USA. While that is
>> not impossible, given the Javanese name and non-USA usage of English,
>> I suspect that it is not correct.
>
> Thats entirely possible Carl, so you could well be correct, but after
Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> In Indonesia, the case resemble hypothetical case in this thread, where
> sysadmins in TV station doesn't care about least privilege security
> principle and they gave teens full root privileges, for most programs are
> for teens.
What a BS! This comes from Windoz for
On Friday 21 June 2019 15:41:00 Carl Fink wrote:
> On 6/20/19 12:36 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 June 2019 08:30:57 Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> >> In hypothetical scenario as I described in the starting of this
> >> thread, I imagine that TV programs run by TV stations can be
> >>
Carl Fink wrote:
You seem to be assuming that Mr. Banjaya is in the USA. While that is
not impossible, given the Javanese name and non-USA usage of English,
I suspect that it is not correct.
In Indonesia, the case resemble hypothetical case in this thread, where
sysadmins in TV station
On 6/20/19 12:36 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Thursday 20 June 2019 08:30:57 Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
In hypothetical scenario as I described in the starting of this
thread, I imagine that TV programs run by TV stations can be thought
as computer programs in TV station's production systems.
I
On Thursday 20 June 2019 08:30:57 Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> Carl (ca...@panix.com) said:
> > OK, which meaning of "program" are you using here? In American (and
> > UK) English, it can mean either "set of instructions that run on a
> > computer" or "television entertainment item." You seem to be
Carl (ca...@panix.com) said:
OK, which meaning of "program" are you using here? In American (and
UK) English, it can mean either "set of instructions that run on a
computer" or "television entertainment item." You seem to be using it
both ways in this message or confusing the two.
In this
On Thursday, June 20, 2019 02:57:18 AM Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > I think we (or at least I) must be missing some context here. For
> > starters, this must be some specific group of teenagers. And I'm sure
> > they're not given permission to take over running the whole TV station.
> >
> > Is this
On 6/20/19 12:56 AM, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
That is almost as bad as having no security restrictions at all. The
correct thing to do would be to set permissions on the programs to
allow them to be run by group remaja.
What I thought that the correct way is to configure sudoers so that
remaja
On 2019-06-20, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
>
>> I think we (or at least I) must be missing some context here. For
>> starters, this must be some specific group of teenagers. And I'm sure
>> they're not given permission to take over running the whole TV station.
>>
>> Is this some specific educational
I think we (or at least I) must be missing some context here. For
starters, this must be some specific group of teenagers. And I'm sure
they're not given permission to take over running the whole TV station.
Is this some specific educational environment? Or is it a TV station
specifically
On 20/06/19 4:56 PM, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
>> That is almost as bad as having no security restrictions at all. The
>> correct thing to do would be to set permissions on the programs to
>> allow them to be run by group remaja.
> What I thought that the correct way is to configure sudoers so that
>
That is almost as bad as having no security restrictions at all. The
correct thing to do would be to set permissions on the programs to
allow them to be run by group remaja.
What I thought that the correct way is to configure sudoers so that
remaja group can access programs that they absolutely
On 6/19/19 12:06 AM, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
Hello all Debian Users,
Consider the hypothetical scenario below.
I often encountered cases on systems in television stations when they
configured sudoers like this snippet below:
%remaja ALL=(ALL:ALL) ALL
The rationale for above is most programs
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:06:59AM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> Hello all Debian Users,
>
> Consider the hypothetical scenario below.
>
> I often encountered cases on systems in television stations when
> they configured sudoers like this snippet below:
>
> %remaja ALL=(ALL:ALL) ALL
>
> The
On 6/19/2019 6:06 AM, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> Hello all Debian Users,
>
> Consider the hypothetical scenario below.
>
> I often encountered cases on systems in television stations when they
> configured sudoers like this snippet below:
>
> %remaja ALL=(ALL:ALL) ALL
>
> The rationale for above is
Hello all Debian Users,
Consider the hypothetical scenario below.
I often encountered cases on systems in television stations when they
configured sudoers like this snippet below:
%remaja ALL=(ALL:ALL) ALL
The rationale for above is most programs on such systems can only be
accessed by
42 matches
Mail list logo
