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 2014-04-11, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com 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
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 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 quickbooks.off...@gmail.com
The
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim
sali...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 04/11/2014 11:18 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
- Original Message -
= Proposed System Wide Change: The securetty file is empty by default =
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 way
On 04/14/2014 09:21 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim
sali...@fedoraproject.org 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
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
sali...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Apologies for being late to the discussion as well - just wanted to note
that I've
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
sali...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Apologies for being late to
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
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com 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
= 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 quickbooks.off...@gmail.com
The securetty file is empty by default
There's on-going discussion for this Change on the
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''' from
- 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 quickbooks.off...@gmail.com
The securetty file is empty by default
There's
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
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): quickbooksquickbooks.off...@gmail.com
The securetty file is empty by default
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, nothing
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 16:26:48 +
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com 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
Change
= 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 quickbooks.off...@gmail.com
The securetty file is empty by default
There's on-going discussion for this Change on the
19 matches
Mail list logo
