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, 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 cha
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 outdated.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 phy
Once upon a time, Paul Wouters said:
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2014, Chris Adams wrote:
> >Once upon a time, Matthew Miller 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 defaul
On Wed, 9 Apr 2014, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Matthew Miller 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 sen
Once upon a time, Matthew Miller 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 security, it's a
> > relic
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 mode
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.
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
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Przemek Klosowski
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 /etc/securetty file.
>
> This is
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
log
2014-04-02 20:12 GMT+02:00 Simo Sorce :
> 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_
2014-04-03 15:06 GMT+02:00 Simo Sorce :
> 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 th
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 use
Once upon a time, quickbooks office 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
--
devel mailing list
dev
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
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
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
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, a
On 2 April 2014 17:15, 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 you 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 meeti
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 some
Am 02.04.2014 19:29, schrieb Chris Adams:
> Once upon a time, Jaroslav Reznik said:
>> - Original Message -----
>>> [CHANGE PROPOSAL] The securetty file is empty by default
>>>
>>> All the info has been sitting here @
>&g
Once upon a time, Jaroslav Reznik 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
> > sinc
- 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 b
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
[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
27 matches
Mail list logo
