Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
>> But, sysv-init has much the same issue in that there's a shell script
>> run as root,
>
> I beg to differ. If you try to run a service as user '0day' from a
> sysv-init script, then you get the behaviour of implemented by
>
> - that service
Hi Simon,
Simon Hobson writes:
> Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
>
>> No idea whether systemd services run by non-system users makes sense but
>> then again, lots of systemd probably doesn't make much sense.
>
> Do you mean "systemd service" as in "something that's part of
>
Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
> No idea whether systemd services run by non-system users makes sense but
> then again, lots of systemd probably doesn't make much sense.
Do you mean "systemd service" as in "something that's part of systemd"; or do
you mean "something that's
Hi,
Adam Borowski writes:
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 08:14:40PM +0900, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
>> Evilham writes:
>> > Hi there,
>> >
>> > Am 03/07/2017 um 16:08 schrieb dev:
>> >> "So, yeah, I don't think there's anything to fix in systemd here."
>> >>- Poettering
>> >>
>> >> Not sure
On 05/07/2017 at 03:40, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> * On 2017 04 Jul 18:59 -0500, Rick Moen wrote:
>> Quoting Nate Bargmann (n...@n0nb.us):
>>
>>> * On 2017 04 Jul 13:27 -0500, Evilham wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, it still doesn't read mail.
>>>
>>> Or does it?
>>
>> Well, it _does_ now include a shell
* On 2017 04 Jul 18:59 -0500, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Nate Bargmann (n...@n0nb.us):
>
> > * On 2017 04 Jul 13:27 -0500, Evilham wrote:
> >
> > Well, it still doesn't read mail.
> >
> > Or does it?
>
> Well, it _does_ now include a shell interpretar (debug-shell.service),
> so it's a short
Quoting Nate Bargmann (n...@n0nb.us):
> * On 2017 04 Jul 13:27 -0500, Evilham wrote:
>
> Well, it still doesn't read mail.
>
> Or does it?
Well, it _does_ now include a shell interpretar (debug-shell.service),
so it's a short step from there to (badly) reimplementing emacs and Gnus. ;->
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 at 09:08:11 -0500
dev wrote:
> Sounds like a "won't fix", too:
>
> "So, yeah, I don't think there's anything to fix in systemd here."
>- Poettering
>
> Not sure what's more troubling here[1]; the lack of concern, the
> digression from POSIX, or the
Am 04/07/2017 um 13:22 schrieb Joachim Fahrner:
>
> Next step probably will be to supersede unix user management and
> integrate it into systemd :-D
Ehem. There is no provision to delete users.
https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd-sysusers.html
--
Evilham
On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 08:14:40PM +0900, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
> Evilham writes:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > Am 03/07/2017 um 16:08 schrieb dev:
> >> "So, yeah, I don't think there's anything to fix in systemd here."
> >>- Poettering
> >>
> >> Not sure what's more troubling here[1]; the lack of
On Tue, 04 Jul 2017 at 13:22:47 +0200
Joachim Fahrner wrote:
> Am 2017-07-04 12:46, schrieb Alessandro Selli:
>> I still think it's a bug that systemd runs a process as root when
>> adduser is
>> configured to prevent creation of a user with a given name but such a
>> user
Hi,
Evilham writes:
> Hi there,
>
> Am 03/07/2017 um 16:08 schrieb dev:
>> Sounds like a "won't fix", too:
>>
>> "So, yeah, I don't think there's anything to fix in systemd here."
>>- Poettering
>>
>> Not sure what's more troubling here[1]; the lack of concern, the
>> digression from
Am 2017-07-04 12:46, schrieb Alessandro Selli:
I still think it's a bug that systemd runs a process as root when
adduser is
configured to prevent creation of a user with a given name but such a
user
does exist.
Next step probably will be to supersede unix user management and
integrate it
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 at 09:38:36 +0200
Giovanni Rapagnani wrote:
>
>
> On 03/07/17 18:23, Joachim Fahrner wrote:
>> Am 2017-07-03 17:34, schrieb dev:
>>> useradd and adduser work differently. One allows it, the other does not.
>>> Just thought 'why not make them work the same?'.
On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 09:59:36AM +0200, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote:
> On 04/07/17 09:23, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote:
> > the flag will only disable the check against NAME_REGEX defined in
> > /etc/adduser.conf. The flag will not permit to create usernames starting
> > with dash or containing invalid
On 04/07/17 09:23, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote:
the flag will only disable the check against NAME_REGEX defined in
/etc/adduser.conf. The flag will not permit to create usernames starting
with dash or containing invalid characters (ie not in [-0-9a-z_]) .
for the sake of not spreading false
On 03/07/17 18:23, Joachim Fahrner wrote:
Am 2017-07-03 17:34, schrieb dev:
useradd and adduser work differently. One allows it, the other does not.
Just thought 'why not make them work the same?'. That's all.
That's right, that's a bug. They should work the same, and they should
follow
On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 10:45:29AM -0500, dev wrote:
> On 07/03/2017 10:40 AM, Evilham wrote:
>
>
> > That's the thing, we can do that :-) probably should, but the "right
> > way" (from a standards point of view) would be to actually allow those
> > names ^^ not to disallow them. So instead of
On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 04:36:30PM +0200, Evilham wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Am 03/07/2017 um 16:08 schrieb dev:
...
> >
> > useradd 0day works on Devuan. adduser 0day does not. Which is correct?
>
> I had this discussion yesterday, so here are my 2 cents :-).
>
> It is quite inconsistent what a
When was that option added?
Sent from my MetroPCS 4G LTE Android Device
Original message From: Evilham <dev...@evilham.com> Date:
7/3/17 11:03 AM (GMT-06:00) To: dng@lists.dyne.org Subject: Re: [DNG] systemd
allows elevated access from unit files?
Am 03/07/2017 um
Am 2017-07-03 17:34, schrieb dev:
useradd and adduser work differently. One allows it, the other does
not.
Just thought 'why not make them work the same?'. That's all.
That's right, that's a bug. They should work the same, and they should
follow POSIX-rules, not Poettering-rules.
Jochen
Am 03/07/2017 um 17:57 schrieb KatolaZ:
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 10:45:29AM -0500, dev wrote:
>> On 07/03/2017 10:40 AM, Evilham wrote:
>>
>>
>>> That's the thing, we can do that :-) probably should, but the "right
>>> way" (from a standards point of view) would be to actually allow those
>>>
On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 10:45:29AM -0500, dev wrote:
> On 07/03/2017 10:40 AM, Evilham wrote:
>
>
> > That's the thing, we can do that :-) probably should, but the "right
> > way" (from a standards point of view) would be to actually allow those
> > names ^^ not to disallow them. So instead of
On 07/03/2017 10:40 AM, Evilham wrote:
> That's the thing, we can do that :-) probably should, but the "right
> way" (from a standards point of view) would be to actually allow those
> names ^^ not to disallow them. So instead of modifying the way useradd
> works, the way adduser works should be
Am 03/07/2017 um 17:34 schrieb dev:
> On 07/03/2017 10:17 AM, Evilham wrote:
>> Am 03/07/2017 um 17:06 schrieb dev:
>>> Would this be a good case to dis-allow ^0-9 by default but add a switch
>>> to allow it?
>>
>> What's the case for disallowing those at all? names starting with a
>> digit _are_
On 07/03/2017 10:17 AM, Evilham wrote:
> Am 03/07/2017 um 17:06 schrieb dev:
>> Would this be a good case to dis-allow ^0-9 by default but add a switch
>> to allow it?
>
> What's the case for disallowing those at all? names starting with a
> digit _are_ valid usernames.
useradd and adduser
Am 03/07/2017 um 17:06 schrieb dev:
> Would this be a good case to dis-allow ^0-9 by default but add a switch
> to allow it?
What's the case for disallowing those at all? names starting with a
digit _are_ valid usernames.
It is an issue with systemd (and, to a different extent, shadow), we
On 07/03/2017 09:58 AM, Rowland Penny wrote:
>
> The problem is, '0day' is a perfectly acceptable name in Active
> Directory and that includes a Samba AD.
Would this be a good case to dis-allow ^0-9 by default but add a switch
to allow it?
___
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 09:54:27 -0500
dev wrote:
>
> On 07/03/2017 09:36 AM, Evilham wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
>
> >
> > (Maybe we should file a bug on bugs.devuan.org + bugs.debian.org +
> > shadow repo against shadow?)
> >
>
> Seems pretty straightforward to patch
Am 2017-07-03 16:08, schrieb dev:
Sounds like a "won't fix", too:
"So, yeah, I don't think there's anything to fix in systemd here."
- Poettering
Not sure what's more troubling here[1]; the lack of concern, the
digression from POSIX, or the bug/backdoor itself. Maybe all three.
useradd
Sounds like a "won't fix", too:
"So, yeah, I don't think there's anything to fix in systemd here."
- Poettering
Not sure what's more troubling here[1]; the lack of concern, the
digression from POSIX, or the bug/backdoor itself. Maybe all three.
useradd 0day works on Devuan. adduser 0day
31 matches
Mail list logo