- Original Message -
> On 5.1.2015 15:57, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> >> Björn Persson wrote:
> >>> I bet! I worry that the questions would quickly become annoying. But if
> >>> ports are going to be blocked by default, then there needs to be some
> >>> way fo
On 5.1.2015 15:57, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> Björn Persson wrote:
>>> I bet! I worry that the questions would quickly become annoying. But if
>>> ports are going to be blocked by default, then there needs to be some
>>> way for non-sysadmin users to open them.
>>
>> No
- Original Message -
> Björn Persson wrote:
> > I bet! I worry that the questions would quickly become annoying. But if
> > ports are going to be blocked by default, then there needs to be some
> > way for non-sysadmin users to open them.
>
> No, why? The ports just need to be closed, pe
Hi
On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Björn Persson wrote:
> > I bet! I worry that the questions would quickly become annoying. But if
> > ports are going to be blocked by default, then there needs to be some
> > way for non-sysadmin users to open them.
>
> No, why? The ports
Björn Persson wrote:
> I bet! I worry that the questions would quickly become annoying. But if
> ports are going to be blocked by default, then there needs to be some
> way for non-sysadmin users to open them.
No, why? The ports just need to be closed, period. Non-sysadmin users
shouldn't be allo
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>1) I do not feel that countless programs will or want to accept
>patches to open ports twice. I expect them to actually open a port
>once and if they want to work with firewalld or some other firewall
>daemon signal on dbus that they are looking to have a port open usin
Florian Weimer wrote:
>On 12/21/2014 05:28 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
>
>> Alternatively, cut out the packet filter and have GlibC ask the user
>> whether the call to bind or connect shall be allowed to succeed (or
>> automatically allow or deny the call if so configured). This has the
>> advantage t
On 22 December 2014 at 01:26, Björn Persson wrote:
> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> >Uhm no. You seem to be wanting a fight over something, and I have no
> >mood to engage. I hope you have a more pleasant holidays than what
> >your tone indicates you are currently having.
>
> The idea of making tw
Am 22.12.2014 um 11:49 schrieb Florian Weimer:
On 12/21/2014 05:28 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
Alternatively, cut out the packet filter and have GlibC ask the user
whether the call to bind or connect shall be allowed to succeed (or
automatically allow or deny the call if so configured). This has
On 12/21/2014 05:28 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
Alternatively, cut out the packet filter and have GlibC ask the user
whether the call to bind or connect shall be allowed to succeed (or
automatically allow or deny the call if so configured). This has the
advantage that the program is informed that i
Am 22.12.2014 um 10:10 schrieb drago01:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Björn Persson wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Uhm no. You seem to be wanting a fight over something, and I have no
mood to engage. I hope you have a more pleasant holidays than what
your tone indicates you are current
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Björn Persson wrote:
> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>Uhm no. You seem to be wanting a fight over something, and I have no
>>mood to engage. I hope you have a more pleasant holidays than what
>>your tone indicates you are currently having.
>
> The idea of making two
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>Uhm no. You seem to be wanting a fight over something, and I have no
>mood to engage. I hope you have a more pleasant holidays than what
>your tone indicates you are currently having.
The idea of making two calls to open a port seemed like a bad design to
me, so I prop
On 21 December 2014 at 14:40, Björn Persson wrote:
> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> >On 21 December 2014 at 09:28, Björn Persson
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Mattia Verga wrote:
> >> >The alternative could be a "open approach" from Firewalld, where an
> >> >application, when it's executed, can inform firew
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>On 21 December 2014 at 09:28, Björn Persson
>wrote:
>
>> Mattia Verga wrote:
>> >The alternative could be a "open approach" from Firewalld, where an
>> >application, when it's executed, can inform firewalld that needs to
>> >open a port, firewalld asks the user if it s
On 21 December 2014 at 09:28, Björn Persson wrote:
> Mattia Verga wrote:
> >The alternative could be a "open approach" from Firewalld, where an
> >application, when it's executed, can inform firewalld that needs to
> >open a port, firewalld asks the user if it should grant access to the
> >applic
Mattia Verga wrote:
>The alternative could be a "open approach" from Firewalld, where an
>application, when it's executed, can inform firewalld that needs to
>open a port, firewalld asks the user if it should grant access to the
>application and then opens the port... but this needs to be
>implem
17 matches
Mail list logo
