On Tue, 2014-04-15 at 13:48 +0930, William Brown wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-04-14 at 23:57 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-04-15 at 08:49 +0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> > > On 04/14/2014 09:21 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim
On 04/14/2014 08:57 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
But disabling it has no useful purpose, you are just going to make
another account all powerful to compensate, either by giving sudo powers
or other similar mechanism, what you loose is the ability to properly
recover a system.
However, one benefit to di
On Mon, 2014-04-14 at 23:57 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-04-15 at 08:49 +0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> > On 04/14/2014 09:21 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim
> > > wrote:
> > >> Apologies for being late to the discussion
On Tue, 2014-04-15 at 08:49 +0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> On 04/14/2014 09:21 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim
> > wrote:
> >> Apologies for being late to the discussion as well - just wanted to note
> >> that I've been running root-
On 04/14/2014 09:21 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim
> wrote:
>> Apologies for being late to the discussion as well - just wanted to note
>> that I've been running root-password-less configurations for some time
>> (by using passwd -l to lock o
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johan...@gmail.com) said:
> So let's just clear this matter once and for all...
>
> Is the baseWG supposed to be responsible for the decisions and direction and
> the length of maintenance of those 1806 components they self defined as a
> part of the baseWG?
In the same
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim
wrote:
> On 04/11/2014 11:18 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> - Original Message -
>>> = Proposed System Wide Change: The securetty file is empty by default =
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/securetty_file_is_empty_by_default
On 04/11/2014 11:18 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> = Proposed System Wide Change: The securetty file is empty by default =
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/securetty_file_is_empty_by_default
>>
>> Change owner(s): quickbooks
>>
>> The securetty file is empt
On 04/11/2014 07:23 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
You are coming to this conclusion how exactly?
The baseWG having to send special endorsement of the proposal in their name.
So let's just clear this matter once and for all...
Is the baseWG supposed to be responsible for the decisions and direction
On 2014-04-11, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>= Proposed System Wide Change: The securetty file is empty by default =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/securetty_file_is_empty_by_default
>
[...]
> Disabling root access via any console device (tty).
>
This is silly. If a system has been broken v
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:20:36PM +0200, Lennart Poettering 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
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 16:26:48 +
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
> On 04/11/2014 04:18 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> >> = Proposed System Wide Change: The securetty file is empty by
> >> default =
> >> >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/securetty_file_is_empty_by_default
> >> >
> >> >Cha
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:23:43PM -0400, Corey Sheldon wrote:
> Picking this up late but am I current in understanding this essentially
> creates an additional kernel level sandbox to the ssh secure tty
> tunnelling? and is this for both server and client or just for server
> env./?
Nope, nothin
On 04/11/2014 04:18 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: The securetty file is empty by default =
>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/securetty_file_is_empty_by_default
>
>Change owner(s): quickbooks
>
>The securetty file is empty by default
>
>There's on-going discuss
Picking this up late but am I current in understanding this essentially
creates an additional kernel level sandbox to the ssh secure tty
tunnelling? and is this for both server and client or just for server
env./?
Corey W Sheldon
Owner, 1st Class Mobile Shine
310.909.7672
www.facebook.com/1stclas
- Original Message -
> = Proposed System Wide Change: The securetty file is empty by default =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/securetty_file_is_empty_by_default
>
> Change owner(s): quickbooks
>
> The securetty file is empty by default
>
> There's on-going discussion for thi
Am 11.04.2014 16:30, schrieb Jaroslav Reznik:
> === Description ===
> An empty /etc/securetty file prevents root login on any devices attached to
> the computer.
>
> === Effects ===
> Prevents access to the root account via the console or the network. The
> following programs are '''prevented''
= Proposed System Wide Change: The securetty file is empty by default =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/securetty_file_is_empty_by_default
Change owner(s): quickbooks
The securetty file is empty by default
There's on-going discussion for this Change on the devel list.
https://lists.f
18 matches
Mail list logo
