At 11:43 AM 1/23/2003 -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 09:19:47AM -0600, Jason B. wrote:This is getting ridiculous. Both 1 and 2 still have security holes, if you still want to call them that. Are my security points not making it through? Again, I think we can do a very effective job of securing a running tftpd. I won't bother typing it a third time.
> It's not ludicrous to believe that most people use PXE to install their
> clusters. If you were maintaining a 32, 64, 128 node cluster, would you
> want to clone the same number of disks and worry about popping them in and
> out and switching to each console to check status whenever you're installing
> a node or collecting the MAC address? No... so don't make the claim that
> NCSA is trying to impose their policy on the rest of the users. NCSA is not
> claiming that PXE should be the ONLY install method available, but rather
> the PREFERRED method (since it is). So... OSCAR remains general enough for
> all users.
But the moment you enable a security hole service like tftp for users that
don't need it, you have enforced policy on them. Why not ask a question up
front about what method you are using for install:
1. PXE - Managed (nodes will always PXE boot)
2. PXE - Non-Managed (nodes will not PXE boot unless they are being installed
the first time)
3. CD
4. Floppy
Only in case 1 & 2 do you install tftp at ALL, and only in case 1 do you
leave the service on after the wizard exits.
Now you have a framework which supports all users, and doesn't open up
security holes. The moment you install something for the user that they
don't *NEED* for their cluster, you have enforced policy. And what is good
enough for many of the current oscar members, may not be good enough for
others, and may be a reason they chose not to use OSCAR as their solution.
This POLICY thing is silly. You're saying that any decision we make where we don't diverge in all possible directions is enforcing POLICY. If that's the case, then that's fine- it's unavoidable, and we do it all over the place already. If we have a service we can depend on to be there, that's POLICY? And POLICY always equals BAD? This is why I'm saying it's ridiculous.
<fact>
Again, we're just talking about maintaining the status quo of ANY PXE installed cluster today!! What is the big deal?
</fact>
<opinion>
Floppy installed clusters are minority of installations, and are ever decreasing.
</opinion>
Anyway... to put this in perspective, I only wanted to remove another button from the installation which seems unnecessary. Especially considering the increasing majority of PXE use, and also our future direction towards server side boot control. Seemed like a no brainer.
Jeremy
-Sean-- _______________________________________________________________________ Sean Dague [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dague.net There is no silver bullet. Plus, werewolves make better neighbors than zombies, and they tend to keep the vampire population down. _______________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Oscar-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oscar-devel
