Re: [DNG] Bad UEFI: was Systemd at work: rm -rf EFI

On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 04:14:49PM +, Rainer Weikusat wrote: [cut] > > It's not really that simple: This really an interesting multi-level > fuck-up. > > - the systemd people shouldn't just mount the efivarfs r/w > because that's convenient for them and tell people to get

Re: [DNG] Bad UEFI: was Systemd at work: rm -rf EFI

KatolaZ writes: > On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 10:02:51PM +, Simon Hobson wrote: >> Arnt Karlsen wrote: >> >> > ..me, I do not see any point in keeping it mounted at all. >> > Whenever such a need arises, it should be mounted read-only. >> > If a need to

Re: [DNG] Bad UEFI: was Systemd at work: rm -rf EFI

"Rainer H. Rauschenberg" writes: > On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, Simon Hobson wrote: [...] > Besides that I don't think mounting EFI-vars r/w is a good idea as a > system default and I don't think the user not having read all the > relevant documentation (spread out over

Re: [DNG] Bad UEFI: was Systemd at work: rm -rf EFI

Edward Bartolo writes: > The argument of those who support protecting the hardware against a > probable breakage are logically sound: I support them. But "the hardware" didn't "break". Certain vendor-supplied software reportedly ceases to function if certain EFI variables are

Re: [DNG] Vote for/against netman name change

On 2016-02-04 07:03, Edward Bartolo wrote: > > Do you agree to renaming netman? NO -- al3xu5 / dotcommon Say NO to copyright, patents, trademarks and any industrial design restrictions. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org

Re: [DNG] Change netman into another name.

On Fri, 2/5/16, aitor_czr wrote: Subject: Re: [DNG] Change netman into another name. To: "Edward Bartolo" , "Teodoro Santoni" , dng@lists.dyne.org Date: Friday, February 5, 2016, 10:41 AM El 05/02/16 a las 17:14, Teodoro

Re: [DNG] Bad UEFI: was Systemd at work: rm -rf EFI

Rainer H. Rauschenberg wrote: > I think this is the road that led to systemd -- if you think Linux needs > to be "as easy as Windows" you tend to take away all the aspects that made > it superior (in my view). I think I didn't really express my position very

Re: [DNG] Bad UEFI: was Systemd at work: rm -rf EFI

On 06/02/16 00:18, Hendrik Boom wrote: On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 11:39:15AM +, Simon Hobson wrote: Of course, unless you physically remove support for the virtual filesystem, then there's nothing to stop any program with enough privileges to mount the filesystem when it wants. And that's

Re: [DNG] Bad UEFI: was Systemd at work: rm -rf EFI

On 02/05/2016 01:20 PM, Steve Litt wrote: > On Fri, 5 Feb 2016 18:33:44 +0100 > Didier Kryn wrote: > >> People have always expected rm -rf / to destroy the OS. They >> also know that, from the keyboard, with root priviledge, they can >> destroy the partition table of the

Re: [DNG] Change netman into another name.

El 04/02/16 a las 21:17, edward Bartolo escribió: El 04/02/16 a las 21:17, edward Bartolo escribió:Hi All, > >I did a google search for netman but I was presented with several >pages of results always pointing to other similarly named commercial >projects.

Re: [DNG] Change netman into another name.

El 03/02/16 a las 08:30, Edward Bartolo escribió: Hi All, I did a google search for netman but I was presented with several pages of results always pointing to other similarly named commercial projects. Therefore, I am thinking about changing netman's name into a unique name

Re: [DNG] Bad UEFI: was Systemd at work: rm -rf EFI

On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 10:02:51PM +, Simon Hobson wrote: > Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > ..me, I do not see any point in keeping it mounted at all. > > Whenever such a need arises, it should be mounted read-only. > > If a need to write to /sys/firmware/efi/efivars should

Re: [DNG] Bad UEFI: was Systemd at work: rm -rf EFI

On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 11:39:15AM +, Simon Hobson wrote: > > Of course, unless you physically remove support for the virtual > filesystem, then there's nothing to stop any program with enough > privileges to mount the filesystem when it wants. And that's the proble with the root model of

Re: [DNG] Change netman into another name.

On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 09:47:45PM +0100, shraptor wrote: > On 2016-02-05 21:12, Edward Bartolo wrote: > >Hi, > > > >I will NOT name the project after myself; I even abstained from > >voting. My project was written to HELP; I am not after > >self-appraisal... > > That's too bad cause I honestly

Re: [DNG] Bad UEFI: was Systemd at work: rm -rf EFI

On 02/05/2016 08:48 PM, Joel Roth wrote: > Didier Kryn wrote: >> >> The ability to brick the motherboard is brand new. Therefore admins >> should be seriously protected and warned against this eventuality, at least >> until it percolates into the general culture. > > IIUC, this means malware

Re: [DNG] Bad UEFI: was Systemd at work: rm -rf EFI

Didier Kryn wrote: > > The ability to brick the motherboard is brand new. Therefore admins > should be seriously protected and warned against this eventuality, at least > until it percolates into the general culture. IIUC, this means malware will now be able to not only erase, but to render

Re: [DNG] Change netman into another name.

On 02/05/2016 07:18 PM, Go Linux wrote: Every name I came up with was already in multiple use. I also thought of netbarx which is completely unique. Kinda like it actually. golinux IMO, netbarx is the best choice :) Aitor.

Re: [DNG] Change netman into another name.

+1 SWS On Feb 5, 2016 7:46 PM, "aitor_czr" wrote: > On 02/05/2016 07:18 PM, Go Linux > wrote: > > Every name I came up with was already in multiple use. I also thought of > netbarx which is completely unique. Kinda like it