Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Giving any kind of information about known user names is considered a
> security
> risk since aprox. 35 years on UNIX.
Depends on site security policy - it's in the same area as deciding whether or
not to allow fingerd to run to allow remote user name queries. It's not
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Giving any kind of information about known user names is considered a
> > security
> > risk since aprox. 35 years on UNIX.
>
> Depends on site security policy - it's in the same area as deciding whether or
> not to allow fingerd to run to all
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>
>> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>> Giving any kind of information about known user names is considered a
>>> security
>>> risk since aprox. 35 years on UNIX.
>> Depends on site security policy - it's in the same area as deciding whether
>> or
>> no
Michael:
> Brian Cameron wrote:
>> 4.6. L10N Impact:
>>
>> The Desktop team and the G11N team are working together to evaluate
>> and
>> provide I18N/L10N support.
>>
> Really? or is that just boiler plate?
Things are in a bit of flux at the moment. Until a few months ago
At last Tuesday's LSARC meeting, I had made arrangements to have
a half-hour inception review for ConsoleKit (LSARC 2009/432) and
the GDM Rewrite case (LSARC 2009/433). During the meeting, the
LSARC committee said that this would be arranged, but it does not
seem to be on the agenda. Is this an
Yes. I also recall you were going to put some materials there and update
later if needed. I just looked in the inception.materials directory and
there
are no materials. Are you planning to have more that the one-pager for
these cases?
When we didn't see any materials last Thursday Asa canceled th
