On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:20:36PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 02.04.14 09:12, quickbooks office (quickbooks.off...@gmail.com) wrote:
[CHANGE PROPOSAL] The securetty file is empty by default
All the info has been sitting here @
On Wed, 02.04.14 09:12, quickbooks office (quickbooks.off...@gmail.com) wrote:
[CHANGE PROPOSAL] The securetty file is empty by default
All the info has been sitting here @
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/securetty_file_is_empty_by_default
since March 20th.
Did I mess something
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:20:36PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
[technical reasoning snipped]
Hence: please let's just remove securetty entirely from the default PAM
stacks. It's annoying, it creates a false sense of security, it's a
relict of a different time and not compatible with modern
Once upon a time, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org said:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:20:36PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
[technical reasoning snipped]
Hence: please let's just remove securetty entirely from the default PAM
stacks. It's annoying, it creates a false sense of
On Wed, 9 Apr 2014, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org said:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:20:36PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
[technical reasoning snipped]
Hence: please let's just remove securetty entirely from the default PAM
stacks. It's
Once upon a time, Paul Wouters p...@nohats.ca said:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2014, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org said:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:20:36PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
[technical reasoning snipped]
Hence: please let's just remove
On Wed, 09.04.14 22:20, Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) wrote:
This sounds entirely backwards, and I'd instead vote for removing
securetty from the PAM stacks we ship altogether. The concept is
outdated. It was useful in a time where the primary way to access a
server was via
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 11:39:19PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
To clarify this: while I believe dropping securetty from the default PAM
config is the right thing to do, I am not vulunteering to do it. But I'd
love to see somebody to pick this up!
I looked, and I think this is just a
On Thu, 3 Apr 2014 07:32:38 -0700, quickbooks office wrote:
This change will not affect logging into the console using the local
account and then doing su to get root privileges.
Is there a problem with logging into the local user account and then
typing su and the root password?
Maybe if
On Wed, 2014-04-02 at 19:15 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 02:12:50PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
How does someone express strong disagreement to this change ?
Posting here is a good start. You can also add a note in the FESCo ticket
for approval once one is filed, and if
This change will not affect logging into the console using the local
account and then doing su to get root privileges.
Is there a problem with logging into the local user account and then
typing su and the root password?
You are as such prompted to make a local user account when doing an
install
Am 03.04.2014 16:32, schrieb quickbooks office:
This change will not affect logging into the console using the local
account and then doing su to get root privileges.
Is there a problem with logging into the local user account and then
typing su and the root password?
i do *not* need a
On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 07:32 -0700, quickbooks office wrote:
This change will not affect logging into the console using the local
account and then doing su to get root privileges.
What local account ?
Is there a problem with logging into the local user account and then
typing su and the root
Once upon a time, quickbooks office quickbooks.off...@gmail.com said:
This change will not affect logging into the console using the local
account and then doing su to get root privileges.
The only local account on many (most?) systems with network
authentication is root.
--
Chris Adams
On Thu, 3 Apr 2014, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 07:32 -0700, quickbooks office wrote:
This change will not affect logging into the console using the local
account and then doing su to get root privileges.
What local account ?
Is there a problem with logging into the local user
2014-04-03 15:06 GMT+02:00 Simo Sorce s...@redhat.com:
On Wed, 2014-04-02 at 19:15 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 02:12:50PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
How does someone express strong disagreement to this change ?
Posting here is a good start. You can also add a note
2014-04-02 20:12 GMT+02:00 Simo Sorce s...@redhat.com:
On Wed, 2014-04-02 at 09:12 -0700, quickbooks office wrote:
[CHANGE PROPOSAL] The securetty file is empty by default
All the info has been sitting here @
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/securetty_file_is_empty_by_default
I
On 04/03/2014 10:32 AM, quickbooks office wrote:
3.1.4.2.2. Disabling Root Logins
To further limit access to the root account, administrators can
disable root logins at the console by editing the /etc/securetty file.
This is done in the name of accountability, by forcing an administrative
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Przemek Klosowski
przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote:
On 04/03/2014 10:32 AM, quickbooks office wrote:
3.1.4.2.2. Disabling Root Logins
To further limit access to the root account, administrators can
disable root logins at the console by editing the
[CHANGE PROPOSAL] The securetty file is empty by default
All the info has been sitting here @
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/securetty_file_is_empty_by_default
since March 20th.
Did I mess something up? Or is there just a backlog?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 04/02/2014 04:12 PM, quickbooks office wrote:
[CHANGE PROPOSAL] The securetty file is empty by default
All the info has been sitting here @
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/securetty_file_is_empty_by_default
since March 20th.
Did I mess something up? Or is there just a backlog?
I
- Original Message -
[CHANGE PROPOSAL] The securetty file is empty by default
All the info has been sitting here @
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/securetty_file_is_empty_by_default
since March 20th.
Did I mess something up? Or is there just a backlog?
Backlog. But for
Once upon a time, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com said:
- Original Message -
[CHANGE PROPOSAL] The securetty file is empty by default
All the info has been sitting here @
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/securetty_file_is_empty_by_default
since March 20th.
Did I
Am 02.04.2014 19:29, schrieb Chris Adams:
Once upon a time, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com said:
- Original Message -
[CHANGE PROPOSAL] The securetty file is empty by default
All the info has been sitting here @
On Wed, 2014-04-02 at 09:12 -0700, quickbooks office wrote:
[CHANGE PROPOSAL] The securetty file is empty by default
All the info has been sitting here @
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/securetty_file_is_empty_by_default
since March 20th.
Did I mess something up? Or is there just a
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 02:12:50PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
How does someone express strong disagreement to this change ?
Posting here is a good start. You can also add a note in the FESCo ticket
for approval once one is filed, and if you are incredibly passionate you can
come to the FESCo
On 2 April 2014 17:15, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 02:12:50PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
How does someone express strong disagreement to this change ?
Posting here is a good start. You can also add a note in the FESCo ticket
for approval once one is
27 matches
Mail list logo
