On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:48:45 -0600, Jesse Keating
wrote:
On Nov 19, 2009, at 13:51, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Note to all...
Please add your vote to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=534047 (Active local
console users get to install signed software on a machine they do not
hav
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Benny Amorsen (benny+use...@amorsen.dk) said:
> > > If there are pkgs which run daemons which are defaulting to ON when
> > > installed or on next reboot - then we should be auditing those pkgs.
> > > Last I checked we default to OFF and that should c
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 10:50 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Benny Amorsen (benny+use...@amorsen.dk) said:
> > > If there are pkgs which run daemons which are defaulting to ON when
> > > installed or on next reboot - then we should be auditing those pkgs.
> > > Last I checked we default to OFF and
Benny Amorsen (benny+use...@amorsen.dk) said:
> > If there are pkgs which run daemons which are defaulting to ON when
> > installed or on next reboot - then we should be auditing those pkgs.
> > Last I checked we default to OFF and that should continue to be the
> > case.
>
> Is there a blanket p
Seth Vidal writes:
> If there are pkgs which run daemons which are defaulting to ON when
> installed or on next reboot - then we should be auditing those pkgs.
> Last I checked we default to OFF and that should continue to be the
> case.
Is there a blanket prohibition on daemons defaulting to ON
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2009, at 17:15, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>> On 11/19/2009 07:48 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>> On Nov 19, 2009, at 13:51, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Note to all...
Please add your vote to
https://bugzilla.red
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 21:57 -0500, Justin wrote:
> > We've gotten enough feedback. We don't need 300 more people giving the same
> > arguments over and over or empty +1s or votes. Please relax and let the
> > developer handle it, followed by fesco.
> >
>
> I'm on Fedora largely for the security po
> Fedora users -- keep on voting, that is why the feature exists.
>
Seconded.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On 11/19/2009 09:20 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
I'm curious what Fedora leaders think is the proper forum for __Fedora
users__ to register complaints against this policy. Voting seems to be the
most efficient, and least spam-y method of doing so,
> We've gotten enough feedback. We don't need 300 more people giving the same
> arguments over and over or empty +1s or votes. Please relax and let the
> developer handle it, followed by fesco.
>
I'm on Fedora largely for the security policy (best SELinux
implementation available, for example), bu
On Nov 19, 2009, at 17:34, Jeff Garzik wrote:
On 11/19/2009 08:25 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Jeff Garzik
wrote:
Are you not familiar with the concept of bugzilla votes? Try
clicking on
the '(vote)' link sometime.
I'm not aware of a workflow or policy whi
On Nov 19, 2009, at 17:15, Jeff Garzik wrote:
On 11/19/2009 07:48 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Nov 19, 2009, at 13:51, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Note to all...
Please add your vote to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=534047 (Active local
console users get to install signed software on
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> I'm curious what Fedora leaders think is the proper forum for __Fedora
> users__ to register complaints against this policy. Voting seems to be the
> most efficient, and least spam-y method of doing so, but I am open to
> suggestions!
Voting
On 11/19/2009 08:25 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Are you not familiar with the concept of bugzilla votes? Try clicking on
the '(vote)' link sometime.
I'm not aware of a workflow or policy which takes into account
bugzilla votes in Fedora. Indiv
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Are you not familiar with the concept of bugzilla votes? Try clicking on
> the '(vote)' link sometime.
I'm not aware of a workflow or policy which takes into account
bugzilla votes in Fedora. Individual maintainers may or may not
consider vo
Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
Moreover, even sudo doesn't ask me again if I invoke it
within 5 minutes of using it (or however long it is).
It does if it was kdesu asking (at least, it's supposed to; otherwise a
malicious app can gain privilege by waiting for you to use kdesu and
then immediate
On 11/19/2009 07:48 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Nov 19, 2009, at 13:51, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Note to all...
Please add your vote to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=534047 (Active local
console users get to install signed software on a machine they do not
have the root password to)
I
On Nov 19, 2009, at 13:51, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Note to all...
Please add your vote to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=534047
(Active local console users get to install signed software on a
machine they do not have the root password to)
I agree with Rahul that it is less pro
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 01:01 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > I think what we have in F12 is much more usable, perhaps trading off with
> > the perceived loss of control.
>
> I think you just picked the easy way out without realizing the consequences
> and are now spitting out bullsh*t to make us b
Dave Airlie redhat.com> writes:
> What has this got to do with Red Hat? you seem to be seriously concerned
> that people with Red Hat email addresses haven't just fixed this
> problem.
It just so happens that people not willing to change this immediately and people
telling others to shut up work
Richard Hughes wrote:
> 2009/11/19 Jeff Garzik :
>> 1) We should recognize this new policy departs from decades of Unix and
>> Linux sysadmin experience.
>
> Sure, it's different. It doesn't make it wrong.
But the real issues which have been pointed out do.
>> 2) F12 policy should be reverted t
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 23:02 +, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> Adam Williamson redhat.com> writes:
>
> > What would you suggest would be better
> > than escalating the issue at the first available opportunity to the
> > appropriate authority - FESco - which is exactly what's happened?
>
> RH folks in
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 18:07 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > No-one's calling anyone stupid. What would you suggest would be better
> > than escalating the issue at the first available opportunity to the
> > appropriate authority - FESco - which is exactly what's happened? The
> > only alternativ
On 11/20/2009 04:37 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>
> Those aren't the only alternatives. There's also the alternative of
> the maintainers voluntarily making a change to accommodate feedback.
> A situation where we have one part of the Fedora community giving
> unwanted marching orders to the othe
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 02:37:36PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 09:25 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 03:00 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >
> > > I would have thought, it should have actually convinced you to not
> > > indulge in same thing but appar
Adam Williamson redhat.com> writes:
> What would you suggest would be better
> than escalating the issue at the first available opportunity to the
> appropriate authority - FESco - which is exactly what's happened?
RH folks in charge of this package (or packages) should tell everyone that their
Le mercredi 18 novembre 2009 à 19:23 -0500, Bill Nottingham a écrit :
> Out of the box, a desktop user has the ability to shut down the machine.
Well, not really anymore. If you try to press the power button now you
won't get a nice software shutdown as before but an evil "do you really
want to d
On 11/20/2009 04:11 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram writes:
>
>> Nah. I am saying, atleast put up different signs rather than everyone
>> hold up the same signs and make the protest so boring
>
> Lucky it's a virtual protest only. Otherwise, it wouldn't be so boring, now
> would it, no
Rahul Sundaram fedoraproject.org> writes:
> Nah. I am saying, atleast put up different signs rather than everyone
> hold up the same signs and make the protest so boring
Lucky it's a virtual protest only. Otherwise, it wouldn't be so boring, now
would it, no matter what the signs read? ;-)
--
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 06:50 +, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
The desktop users on my network might have difficulty doing any of those
things, since their "desktop" access is via VNC tunnelled through ssh.
However, now it seems they can arbitrarily install software
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 09:25 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 03:00 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> > I would have thought, it should have actually convinced you to not
> > indulge in same thing but apparently not. I will lower my expectations.
>
> You don't seem to realise tha
On 11/20/2009 03:55 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 03:00 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>> I would have thought, it should have actually convinced you to not
>> indulge in same thing but apparently not. I will lower my expectations.
>
> You don't seem to realise that right now y
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 03:00 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> I would have thought, it should have actually convinced you to not
> indulge in same thing but apparently not. I will lower my expectations.
You don't seem to realise that right now you have a protest staged
outside your office. Your resp
Note to all...
Please add your vote to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=534047 (Active local console
users get to install signed software on a machine they do not have the
root password to)
I agree with Rahul that it is less productive to "+1" on this email thread.
Jeff
On 11/20/2009 02:58 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 02:41 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> An echo serves no purpose.
>
> 200 comments to that bug say otherwise.
I would have thought, it should have actually convinced you to not
indulge in same thing but apparently not. I will lo
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 02:41 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Well done. Good way to indulge in what you accuse other people of.
Thanks. Did you enjoy it? Joke, joke!
> Jeff's point was already made by him.
Yeah, no kidding.
> An echo serves no purpose.
200 comments to that bug say otherwise.
-
On 11/19/2009 03:59 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
On 11/19/2009 03:37 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
On 11/19/2009 12:16 PM, Simon Andrews wrote:
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Jeff Garzik (jgar...@pobox.com) said:
This sounds like a tacit admission that the default install for
servers is bloody stupid (== same as
On 11/20/2009 02:37 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> Dave Airlie redhat.com> writes:
>
>> So cool off.
>
> So, do guys get a course in patronising at RH or do you come up with this
> stuff
> all on your own? ;-)
Well done. Good way to indulge in what you accuse other people of.
> Nobody's upset. I
Dave Airlie redhat.com> writes:
> So cool off.
So, do guys get a course in patronising at RH or do you come up with this stuff
all on your own? ;-)
Nobody's upset. I added my voice. You guys don't like it. Get over it.
--
Bojan
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
Jeff Spaleta gmail.com> writes:
> Referencing a link to Jeff Garzik's LWN post
> where he reiterates what he has already said in this mailinglist
> discussion doesn't add anything.
As I already explained, it adds my voice. You may not like that. That's OK
with me.
--
Bojan
--
fedora-devel-
On 11/19/2009 03:37 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On 11/19/2009 12:16 PM, Simon Andrews wrote:
>> Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>> Jeff Garzik (jgar...@pobox.com) said:
This sounds like a tacit admission that the default install for
servers is bloody stupid (== same as desktop), unless the admin
>>>
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 22:29 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 16:25 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > Not true. I just want to avoid repetition and if the points you wanted
> > to make have already been made clearly here and elsewhere, just be
> > patient till the decision is made.
On 11/19/2009 12:16 PM, Simon Andrews wrote:
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Jeff Garzik (jgar...@pobox.com) said:
This sounds like a tacit admission that the default install for
servers is bloody stupid (== same as desktop), unless the admin
REMOVES packages we helpfully installed on the server system.
Jeff Garzik writes:
> The only thing that will fix the damage is to update PK, reverting the
> default-insecure policy.
Precisely. I didn't imagine anyone would come with such idea. Even MS
prompts for admin password, doesn't it? And I was told Fedora isn't more
lame when it comes to security th
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 09:02 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 10:32 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Once upon a time, Jesse Keating said:
> > > That is incorrect, unless somehow your ssh tunneled VNC registers as
> > > "local console login", which I doubt. In your case, none of yo
2009/11/19 Chris Adams :
> Once upon a time, Jesse Keating said:
>> That is incorrect, unless somehow your ssh tunneled VNC registers as
>> "local console login", which I doubt. In your case, none of your users
>> would be allowed to install software/updates.
>
> VNC looks like a local console lo
On 09-11-19 05:06:16, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 01:48 -0500, Tony Nelson wrote:
> > On 09-11-18 20:09:18, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 13:50 -0500, Tony Nelson wrote:
> > ..
> > > > Fedora has always been this way. Have you tried to use sound
> > > > or v
2009/11/19 Simon Andrews :
> Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>
>> Jeff Garzik (jgar...@pobox.com) said:
>>>
>>> This sounds like a tacit admission that the default install for
>>> servers is bloody stupid (== same as desktop), unless the admin
>>> REMOVES packages we helpfully installed on the server syste
Verily I say unto thee, that Jesse Keating spake thusly:
> On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 10:32 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
>> Once upon a time, Jesse Keating said:
>>> That is incorrect, unless somehow your ssh tunneled VNC registers as
>>> "local console login", which I doubt. In your case, none of your u
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Jeff Garzik (jgar...@pobox.com) said:
This sounds like a tacit admission that the default install for
servers is bloody stupid (== same as desktop), unless the admin
REMOVES packages we helpfully installed on the server system.
PackageKit has only ever been included in d
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 7:32 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> VNC looks like a local console login.
vnc setup which way? There are multiple ways to fire off a vnc
session and I'd like to confirm what you are saying.
Are you using the system wide /etc/sysconfig/vncservers file provided
by vnc-server in
Chris Adams (cmad...@hiwaay.net) said:
> Once upon a time, Jesse Keating said:
> > That is incorrect, unless somehow your ssh tunneled VNC registers as
> > "local console login", which I doubt. In your case, none of your users
> > would be allowed to install software/updates.
>
> VNC looks like
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 10:32 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Jesse Keating said:
> > That is incorrect, unless somehow your ssh tunneled VNC registers as
> > "local console login", which I doubt. In your case, none of your users
> > would be allowed to install software/updates.
>
>
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 14:31 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> .. err Jeff Garzik already made that point in this thread.
>
> Yeah, so what? Am I not allowed to agree? Or not allowed to point to
> another site?
Here are the rules about externa
Once upon a time, Jesse Keating said:
> That is incorrect, unless somehow your ssh tunneled VNC registers as
> "local console login", which I doubt. In your case, none of your users
> would be allowed to install software/updates.
VNC looks like a local console login.
--
Chris Adams
Systems and
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 06:50 +, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
>
> The desktop users on my network might have difficulty doing any of those
> things, since their "desktop" access is via VNC tunnelled through ssh.
>
> However, now it seems they can arbitrarily install software into /usr,
> on
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 20:20 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> > On 11/18/2009 07:45 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > > Stick with the facts, be clear about what you're
> > > trying to accomplish (changing it back in F13? Changing it back in F12?
> > > Setting a p
On 11/18/2009 05:21 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
>
> You've sortof missed my point here, which isn't a big surprise since I
> left a lot of space to figure it out in.
>
> root added your name to /etc/sudoers. She might have put:
>
> cjd ALL=(ALL) NOPASSWD:ALL
>
> but apparently instead she put:
>
>
Once upon a time, Richard Hughes said:
> 2009/11/19 Chris Adams :
> > So there are no packages in releases/12/Everything that have privilege
> > escalation bugs? All I have to do is wait for one to be found, and I
> > have a signed path to root. Even if the package is fixed in updates, I
> > jus
Hi.
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:39:13 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> No, that won't work either. In PackageKit parlance "installing a
> package" is installing a package that does not already exist on the
> computer. You can't downgrade (or upgrade) packages using the
> PackageKit InstallPackages() met
2009/11/19 Chris Adams :
> So there are no packages in releases/12/Everything that have privilege
> escalation bugs? All I have to do is wait for one to be found, and I
> have a signed path to root. Even if the package is fixed in updates, I
> just have to have a custom updates repo without it.
Once upon a time, Richard Hughes said:
> 2009/11/19 Chris Adams :
> > You keep saying that, but you are wrong. Otherwise, why do we even
> > bother with passwords (and checking password strength)?
>
> Authentication and authorisation are not the same problem at all. It's
> probably worth reading
Once upon a time, Richard Hughes said:
> 2009/11/19 Chris Adams :
> > Once upon a time, Ricky Zhou said:
> >> I might be wrong on this, but wouldn't the attacker need to trick
> >> yum/packagekit into using the malicious repo first? I didn't think that
> >> was allowed for non-root users.
> >
>
2009/11/19 Chris Adams :
> You keep saying that, but you are wrong. Otherwise, why do we even
> bother with passwords (and checking password strength)?
Authentication and authorisation are not the same problem at all. It's
probably worth reading the PolicyKit design documents.
Richard.
--
fedo
2009/11/19 Chris Adams :
> Once upon a time, Ricky Zhou said:
>> I might be wrong on this, but wouldn't the attacker need to trick
>> yum/packagekit into using the malicious repo first? I didn't think that
>> was allowed for non-root users.
>
> 1.5 words: NetworkManager. Think about it.
2 words
Once upon a time, Ricky Zhou said:
> I might be wrong on this, but wouldn't the attacker need to trick
> yum/packagekit into using the malicious repo first? I didn't think that
> was allowed for non-root users.
1.5 words: NetworkManager. Think about it.
--
Chris Adams
Systems and Network A
Once upon a time, Richard Hughes said:
> I
> say perceived as actually typing in a root password doesn't actually
> make the system any more secure at all, less if anything.
You keep saying that, but you are wrong. Otherwise, why do we even
bother with passwords (and checking password strength)?
Tom spot Callaway wrote:
>> I happened to install func the other day on several Fedora and
>> CentOS boxes and was surprised that both services defaulted to on.
>
> Please file a bug here.
I do intend to, just hadn't gotten to it yet. :)
--
ToddOpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pob
On Thursday 19 November 2009 14:05:01 Richard Hughes wrote:
> 2009/11/19 Jeff Garzik :
> > 1) We should recognize this new policy departs from decades of Unix and
> > Linux sysadmin experience.
>
> Sure, it's different. It doesn't make it wrong.
>
> > 2) F12 policy should be reverted to F11, ASAP
2009/11/19 Jeff Garzik :
> 1) We should recognize this new policy departs from decades of Unix and
> Linux sysadmin experience.
Sure, it's different. It doesn't make it wrong.
> 2) F12 policy should be reverted to F11, ASAP. Possibly with a CVE.
PolicyKit in F12 doesn't have the auth_admin (and
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:46:50PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538615
> bug is already opened.
Thanks -- for some reason I couldn't find it in my early-morning searches.
--
Matthew Miller
Senior Systems Architect
Cyberinfrastructure Labs / Instruction
On Wednesday 18 November 2009 04:45:05 pm James Antill wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 16:04 -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > > The problem is the *Default* not the fact that you can consciously
> > > allow users to update without a password.
> >
> > And I wonder what the audit trail will show? Does it
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 16:25 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Not true. I just want to avoid repetition and if the points you wanted
> to make have already been made clearly here and elsewhere, just be
> patient till the decision is made. In other words, cool off.
You really don't get it.
1. Telling
On 11/19/2009 04:51 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> I'm not sure what to change here. I'm guessing that I should change
> "implicit active: yes" to "implicit active: auth_admin". And
> that I should do this in
> /usr/share/polkit-1/actions/org.freedesktop.packagekit.policy
Follow
http://docs.fe
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> The absence of a GUI policy editor combined with lack of documentation for
> the config files makes bad defaults a big issue.
This is a key issue. Do I take it that I have to edit the XML files
directly to require authentication for package installs?
So far I have:
$ pk
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 03:49:29PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>On 11/19/2009 03:51 PM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
>> On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 15:19 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> IMO, it is not particularly useful in a already long thread to keep
>>> repeating the same points.
>>
>> Please stop patroni
On 11/19/2009 04:22 PM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
>
> On the other hand, you don't seem to want people talking in bug reports
> and you don't want them talking on mailing lists.
Not true. I just want to avoid repetition and if the points you wanted
to make have already been made clearly here and else
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 15:49 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Repeating the same thing over and over again is annoying as well. It's
> just noise instead of useful input.
Look, a person expressed an opinion about this screw up on LWN that I
find very reasonable. So, I sent my agreement with it to the
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 04:36:27AM -0500, Ricky Zhou wrote:
> On 2009-11-19 10:23:53 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> > So at least one major security protection measure is not in place and
> > attackers can create their own repositories with signed packages that
> > have well known security flaws, e.g. a pa
On 11/19/2009 03:51 PM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 15:19 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> IMO, it is not particularly useful in a already long thread to keep
>> repeating the same points.
>
> Please stop patronising. It's annoying.
Repeating the same thing over and over again is
On 11/19/2009 03:48 PM, Jeremy Sanders wrote:
> Which of these documents actually explains what these options do properly? I
> couldn't see anything.
>
> They just print out vague descriptions and are not comprehensive. Most of
> the documentation just tells me how the configuration files are fo
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 15:19 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> IMO, it is not particularly useful in a already long thread to keep
> repeating the same points.
Please stop patronising. It's annoying.
--
Bojan
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mai
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/f12/en-US/html/sect-
Release_Notes-Security.html
>
> Man page:
>
> pklocalauthority(8) polkit(8) polkitd(8) pkaction(1), pkcheck(1),
> pkexec(1)
Which of these documents actually explains what these options do properly? I
coul
On 11/19/2009 03:38 PM, Jeremy Sanders wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>> Even Microsoft Windows asks for elevated privileges for this sort of
>> thing!
>
> What I'd like to have is a comprehensive set of options that need to be
> locked down in PolicyKit to get a secure system. It looks like ther
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Even Microsoft Windows asks for elevated privileges for this sort of
> thing!
What I'd like to have is a comprehensive set of options that need to be
locked down in PolicyKit to get a secure system. It looks like there are
tons of potentially nasty options enabled by defaul
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 01:48 -0500, Tony Nelson wrote:
> On 09-11-18 20:09:18, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 13:50 -0500, Tony Nelson wrote:
> ..
> > > Fedora has always been this way. Have you tried to use sound or
> > > video in the past few releases? I think it's called "crea
David Zeuthen wrote:
> Jeez, Rahul. This has nothing to do with polkit per se, only PackageKit
> and how it decides to use polkit.
Yet the root of the problem seems to be that in PolicyKit 1, you dropped
support for the auth_admin_keep_always feature which was used so far and
which had exactly the
On 11/19/2009 02:49 PM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 14:31 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> .. err Jeff Garzik already made that point in this thread.
>
> Yeah, so what? Am I not allowed to agree? Or not allowed to point to
> another site?
IMO, it is not particularly useful in a al
Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
> Since when did security become optional in Linux?
That's not really the point. The real issue is that it defaults to being
insecure.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fe
On 2009-11-19 10:23:53 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> So at least one major security protection measure is not in place and
> attackers can create their own repositories with signed packages that
> have well known security flaws, e.g. a package with a bad setuid root
> binary, and install it, if it is not
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:18:28PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 11/18/2009 11:19 PM, nodata wrote:
>
> >
> > Thanks. I have changed the title to:
> > "All users get to install software on a machine they do not have the
> > root password to"
>
> .. if the packages are signed and from a signe
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 14:31 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> .. err Jeff Garzik already made that point in this thread.
Yeah, so what? Am I not allowed to agree? Or not allowed to point to
another site?
--
Bojan
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.co
On 11/19/2009 02:30 PM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram fedoraproject.org> writes:
>
>> If you have a problem with this, do explain why. Not suggesting it is
>> not a problem but being more descriptive does help.
>
> This opens the door to all kinds of cascaded exploits that would otherwi
Rahul Sundaram fedoraproject.org> writes:
> If you have a problem with this, do explain why. Not suggesting it is
> not a problem but being more descriptive does help.
This opens the door to all kinds of cascaded exploits that would otherwise not
be possible (see: http://lwn.net/Articles/362640
On 11/19/2009 12:29 PM, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Rahul Sundaram spake thusly:
>> On 11/19/2009 11:51 AM, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
>>
>>> Error: Too many assumptions. Stack overflow.
>>
>> Yes, you are making too many assumptions
>
> Where?
Just stop.
On 11/18/2009 11:27 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 20:20 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
5) The people who want this new security policy should add an opt-in checkbox
in Anaconda or firstboot.
Does anyone disagree with anything in 1-5? It all sounds reasonable to
me?
I disagr
Verily I say unto thee, that Rahul Sundaram spake thusly:
> On 11/19/2009 11:51 AM, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
>
>> Error: Too many assumptions. Stack overflow.
>
> Yes, you are making too many assumptions
Where?
--
Regards,
Keith G. Robertson-Turner
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
f
Verily I say unto thee, that Bill Nottingham spake thusly:
> Jeff Garzik (jgar...@pobox.com) said:
>> Sorry, but this default (desktop users can install pkgs without
>> root) is just stupid. It is antithetical to all standard security
>> models that have come before in Fedora and other Linux
>>
On 11/19/2009 11:09 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>
> Really all this bullshit in this thread, and not one patch? I think
> ppl prefer hearing themselves spout than actually supply a fix.
What patch should be supplied? It wasn't a accidental but a deliberate
choice. If that choice is now considered wr
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 15:39 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> Why do you assume anyone here on this thread can fix this?
>
> Its up to the package maintainer to take a fix and ensure its well
> tested, pointless fire-drill exercises might make you feel better,
> but they don't help the distro.
>
> Rea
1 - 100 of 318 matches
Mail list logo
