On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 12:51 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:45 -0800, David Lutterkort wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 07:55 -0800, Christopher Stone wrote: > > > And people at redhat are completely immune to such attacks while the > > > extra packagers are so nieve that it is very likely to happen once we > > > open up the core cvs. > > > > Don't look at this as a Red Hat vs. the rest of the world thing: even > > though I have a redhat.com mailing address, I don't expect to get commit > > access to the kernel, or glibc or 99% of the rest of the Fedora > > packages. > > > > And I don't want it: not having that access limits the things I need to > > worry about if my account gets compromised. My packages could still have > > been messed with, but at least it won't ripple into _all_ of Fedora > > needing an audit to make sure that a break into my account didn't > > compromise the distro. > > This is, perhaps, the sanest explanation of why the ACLs aren't entirely > a bad thing. > I don't think anyone is arguing that they are entirely a bad thing. In fact I'm completely cool w/them. I just don't like the attitude coming from some of the posters to this thread that the unwashed masses outside of red hat will have their accounts cracked and that will allow the crackers to compromise red hat's internal network. Maybe then the crackers will have control of the weather manipulation machine. -sv -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
