- Original Message -
On 5.1.2015 15:57, Bastien Nocera wrote:
- Original Message -
Björn Persson wrote:
I bet! I worry that the questions would quickly become annoying. But if
ports are going to be blocked by default, then there needs to be some
way for non-sysadmin
On 5.1.2015 15:57, Bastien Nocera wrote:
- Original Message -
Björn Persson wrote:
I bet! I worry that the questions would quickly become annoying. But if
ports are going to be blocked by default, then there needs to be some
way for non-sysadmin users to open them.
No, why? The
- Original Message -
Björn Persson wrote:
I bet! I worry that the questions would quickly become annoying. But if
ports are going to be blocked by default, then there needs to be some
way for non-sysadmin users to open them.
No, why? The ports just need to be closed, period.
Björn Persson wrote:
I bet! I worry that the questions would quickly become annoying. But if
ports are going to be blocked by default, then there needs to be some
way for non-sysadmin users to open them.
No, why? The ports just need to be closed, period. Non-sysadmin users
shouldn't be
Hi
On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Björn Persson wrote:
I bet! I worry that the questions would quickly become annoying. But if
ports are going to be blocked by default, then there needs to be some
way for non-sysadmin users to open them.
No, why? The ports just
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
1) I do not feel that countless programs will or want to accept
patches to open ports twice. I expect them to actually open a port
once and if they want to work with firewalld or some other firewall
daemon signal on dbus that they are looking to have a port open using
a
Florian Weimer wrote:
On 12/21/2014 05:28 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
Alternatively, cut out the packet filter and have GlibC ask the user
whether the call to bind or connect shall be allowed to succeed (or
automatically allow or deny the call if so configured). This has the
advantage that the
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Uhm no. You seem to be wanting a fight over something, and I have no
mood to engage. I hope you have a more pleasant holidays than what
your tone indicates you are currently having.
The idea of making two calls to open a port seemed like a bad design to
me, so I
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Björn Persson Bjorn@rombobjörn.se wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Uhm no. You seem to be wanting a fight over something, and I have no
mood to engage. I hope you have a more pleasant holidays than what
your tone indicates you are currently having.
The idea of
Am 22.12.2014 um 10:10 schrieb drago01:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Björn Persson Bjorn@rombobjörn.se wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Uhm no. You seem to be wanting a fight over something, and I have no
mood to engage. I hope you have a more pleasant holidays than what
your tone
On 12/21/2014 05:28 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
Alternatively, cut out the packet filter and have GlibC ask the user
whether the call to bind or connect shall be allowed to succeed (or
automatically allow or deny the call if so configured). This has the
advantage that the program is informed that
Am 22.12.2014 um 11:49 schrieb Florian Weimer:
On 12/21/2014 05:28 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
Alternatively, cut out the packet filter and have GlibC ask the user
whether the call to bind or connect shall be allowed to succeed (or
automatically allow or deny the call if so configured). This has
On 22 December 2014 at 01:26, Björn Persson Bjorn@rombobjörn.se wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Uhm no. You seem to be wanting a fight over something, and I have no
mood to engage. I hope you have a more pleasant holidays than what
your tone indicates you are currently having.
The idea
Mattia Verga wrote:
The alternative could be a open approach from Firewalld, where an
application, when it's executed, can inform firewalld that needs to
open a port, firewalld asks the user if it should grant access to the
application and then opens the port... but this needs to be
implemented
On 21 December 2014 at 09:28, Björn Persson Bjorn@rombobjörn.se wrote:
Mattia Verga wrote:
The alternative could be a open approach from Firewalld, where an
application, when it's executed, can inform firewalld that needs to
open a port, firewalld asks the user if it should grant access to
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 21 December 2014 at 09:28, Björn Persson Bjorn@rombobjörn.se
wrote:
Mattia Verga wrote:
The alternative could be a open approach from Firewalld, where an
application, when it's executed, can inform firewalld that needs to
open a port, firewalld asks the user if
On 21 December 2014 at 14:40, Björn Persson Bjorn@rombobjörn.se wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 21 December 2014 at 09:28, Björn Persson Bjorn@rombobjörn.se
wrote:
Mattia Verga wrote:
The alternative could be a open approach from Firewalld, where an
application, when it's
17 matches
Mail list logo
