Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

On 15 Nov 2016, at 11:37, Bastien Nocera wrote: As mentioned in the fedora-desktop thread about branding, I don't like seeing this sort of randomly generated and nonsensical (and I mean that in that a string of hex characters obviously don't *mean* something) shouldn't be user-visible.

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

- Original Message - > Further, from a purely technical perspective, I think I've been swayed by > arguments around the generation of the hostname: > > * I'm fine with the lowercase "fedora-" prefix. It makes sense since > hostnames > are generally normalized to lower-case in common

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

On 11.11.2016 19:25, Japheth Cleaver wrote: > On 11/11/2016 9:08 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: >> I still believe we should stick to a generic hostname by default, >> (though I'd rather use "localhost" than "localhost.localdomain" in >> order to drop the redhatism that "localdomain" is), and make

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

On Pá, 2016-11-11 at 13:20 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > I think this is extreme overkill for something that doesn't need to > be > cryptographically sound. It literally just needs to be eight > characters with a > sensible random distribution. I considered using some non-reversible >

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

On 11/14/2016 09:05 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Mon, 14.11.16 08:13, Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) wrote: > >> One way to address this might be for systemd to provide an API for what >> Lennart >> is suggesting and market that as "the correct way to generate a >>

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

On Mon, 14.11.16 08:13, Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) wrote: > One way to address this might be for systemd to provide an API for what > Lennart > is suggesting and market that as "the correct way to generate a > machine-id-derived string". > > Basically, I see the function looking

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

On 11/12/2016 01:14 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 11:17:39AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> On 11 November 2016 at 22:20, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek >> wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 01:20:26PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

> Since I like to use terminal a lot, I would prefer if you keep it short! > > If you must include branding I would prefer shorter version of "Fed" or > "fed" so ideally something like "fed12345". Shorter hostname is not only useful when typing commands, but anywhere else where it is used. For

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

Since I like to use terminal a lot, I would prefer if you keep it short! If you must include branding I would prefer shorter version of "Fed" or "fed" so ideally something like "fed12345". ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

On 11/11/16 19:38, Lennart Poettering wrote: I am pretty sure most things should work just fine, at least in the base OS. Sure, some higher level services might be broken still, but I'd suggest to fix that instead of never changing the hostname... Changing the enrolling code to modify the

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

On 11/11/16 19:23, Stephen Gallagher wrote: I realize that some of this is coming from my old-school sensibilities, but I still remember a time when changing the hostname of a running system caused lots of things to fail, including NFS and sendmail. Well... many times I forget to set

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

On 12/11/16 20:02, Dennis Gilmore wrote: On Friday, November 11, 2016 11:12:51 AM CST Stephen Gallagher wrote: 3) My original proposal was: change the fallback name to Fedora- by default, while of course retaining the ability to set it manually. I think this is terrible, Just because

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

On Friday, November 11, 2016 11:12:51 AM CST Stephen Gallagher wrote: > 3) My original proposal was: change the fallback name to Fedora- by > default, while of course retaining the ability to set it manually. I think this is terrible, Just because if you are on a system with a small

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

On 12 November 2016 at 13:14, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 11:17:39AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> On 11 November 2016 at 22:20, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek >> wrote: >> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 01:20:26PM -0500,

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 11:17:39AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 11 November 2016 at 22:20, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 01:20:26PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > >> I can't think of a reason why we'd need a cryptographically

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

On 11 November 2016 at 22:20, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 01:20:26PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> I can't think of a reason why we'd need a cryptographically secure >> transformation just to generate a random hostname. > > We want it

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 01:20:26PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 11/11/2016 12:17 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > > /me dons crypto hat. > > > > SHA(x || k) has three problems, one of which is bad enough to be an absolute > > showstopper. > > > > 1. Specify *which* SHA. SHA-1 should not

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 12:46:43PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Andrew Lutomirski said: > > NetworkManager already has the ability to randomize MAC addresses to keep > > them from leaking. > > "has the ability" is not "on by default". If you want that level of >

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

On 11 November 2016 at 13:23, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> I still believe we should stick to a generic hostname by default, >> (though I'd rather use "localhost" than "localhost.localdomain" in >> order to drop the redhatism that "localdomain" is), and make the IPA >>

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

Once upon a time, Andrew Lutomirski said: > NetworkManager already has the ability to randomize MAC addresses to keep > them from leaking. "has the ability" is not "on by default". If you want that level of anonymity, you have to turn it on. Also then changing your hostname,

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

On Fri, 11.11.16 13:23, Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) wrote: > > I still believe we should stick to a generic hostname by default, > > (though I'd rather use "localhost" than "localhost.localdomain" in > > order to drop the redhatism that "localdomain" is), and make the IPA > >

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

On 11/11/2016 9:08 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: I still believe we should stick to a generic hostname by default, (though I'd rather use "localhost" than "localhost.localdomain" in order to drop the redhatism that "localdomain" is), and make the IPA client-side enrollment code automatically

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

On 11/11/2016 12:08 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Fri, 11.11.16 11:12, Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) wrote: > >> The hostname may always be set manually and the result will (for the vast >> majority of people) be unique within their environment. This means that if we >> are

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

On 11/11/2016 12:17 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > /me dons crypto hat. > > SHA(x || k) has three problems, one of which is bad enough to be an absolute > showstopper. > > 1. Specify *which* SHA. SHA-1 should not be used for new applications. > > 2. Concatenation without some additional

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Stephen Gallagher said: > > The thread on Fedora Devel revealed some other issues which need to be > > considered carefully. One of these is that of privacy: for example, the > DHCP >

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Fri, 11.11.16 11:12, Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > The hostname may always be set manually and the result will (for the vast > > majority of people) be unique within their environment.

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

On Fri, 11.11.16 11:12, Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) wrote: > The hostname may always be set manually and the result will (for the vast > majority of people) be unique within their environment. This means that if we > are concerned with hostname leakage being a privacy issue, we need

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 10:47:47AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > I think concerns about "leaking" a generated hostname are pretty > minimal. If someone is concerned about that, there are a number of > other changes they'll probably be making, and they can set a non-default > hostname in that

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

Once upon a time, Stephen Gallagher said: > The thread on Fedora Devel revealed some other issues which need to be > considered carefully. One of these is that of privacy: for example, the DHCP > client will send the machine's hostname as one of the cues to the DHCP server >

RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

The original thread is getting rather long and I'd like to attempt to summarize the discussion thus far and see if we can find a way forward from there. First, some clarifications for preconditions that some people were unaware of (either on this thread or the ones that popped up on other