On Monday 03 May 2010 03:31:08 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 2 May 2010 23:57:53 +0200 Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > * Alec Warner schrieb:
> > > Except as stated they are not fixed (as Fabian pointed out). I'm
> > > happy to support something like setting ROOT_UID and ROOT_GID in
> > > gentoo-x86 pr
On Sun, 2 May 2010 23:57:53 +0200
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Alec Warner schrieb:
>
> > Except as stated they are not fixed (as Fabian pointed out). I'm
> > happy to support something like setting ROOT_UID and ROOT_GID in
> > gentoo-x86 profiles and using those. Then if you want to do
> > some
* Stefan Behte schrieb:
> in some environments you have to rename "root" to something else, just
> to be compliant to a (maybe dumb) security policy. This might be the
> case for PCI, and as far as I remember, it is necessary (not just
> "recommended") for a BSI Grundschutz certification (meaning
* Krzysztof Pawlik schrieb:
> Interesting... to me that's not only stupid but also kinda useless - there's
> no
> difference between brute-forcing a password for user named 'foo' or 'root' -
> user name doesn't matter much. Actually according to my ssh logs attackers
> usually don't even try roo
* Alec Warner schrieb:
> Except as stated they are not fixed (as Fabian pointed out). I'm
> happy to support something like setting ROOT_UID and ROOT_GID in
> gentoo-x86 profiles and using those. Then if you want to do something
> utterly ridiculous to your system you can just set the appropria
02.05.2010 17:23, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
> Interesting... to me that's not only stupid but also kinda useless - there's
> no
> difference between brute-forcing a password for user named 'foo' or 'root' -
> user name doesn't matter much.
> It's better to disable password-based remote login altoget
Hi,
in some environments you have to rename "root" to something else, just
to be compliant to a (maybe dumb) security policy. This might be the
case for PCI, and as far as I remember, it is necessary (not just
"recommended") for a BSI Grundschutz certification (meaning something
like "basic securi
On 05/02/10 16:13, Stefan Behte wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in some environments you have to rename "root" to something else, just
> to be compliant to a (maybe dumb) security policy. This might be the
> case for PCI, and as far as I remember, it is necessary (not just
> "recommended") for a BSI Grundschutz
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to put an emphasis on the fact that many eclasses
> and ebuilds in gx86 are relying on an assumption that the superuser
> account is always supposed to be named 'root'.
>
> In fact, no such constraint exists. Although
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to put an emphasis on the fact that many eclasses
> and ebuilds in gx86 are relying on an assumption that the superuser
> account is always supposed to be named 'root'.
>
> In fact, no such constraint exists. Although
On 30-04-2010 20:07:26 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> In my opinion, that policy should clearly indicate that the numeric
> UID/GID should be always used for referencing the superuser account
> as they are fixed unlike the names.
Just to complicate matters a bit, there are platforms where the
equiva
Hello,
I would like to put an emphasis on the fact that many eclasses
and ebuilds in gx86 are relying on an assumption that the superuser
account is always supposed to be named 'root'.
In fact, no such constraint exists. Although most users will never even
think of changing the superuser account
12 matches
Mail list logo
