On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 16:04 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > And I think you missed my point. As we are learning..the hard way... > sysadmins and spin developers can and should be encouraged to generate > site specific policykit rules as part of hardening/softening ALL > policykit enabled applications. You we really won't be able to rip out > all the stuff using policykit. We're gonna have to digest the fact > that policykit is there and start dealing with it in our setups and we > are going to need some hand holding so we can do it effectively. > PackageKit's policy is just the beginning of the learning curve here. > It may not be server relevant as an application.. but the underlying > issue about checking and configuring PolicyKit settings will be server > relevant and unavoidable at some point. I agree, but I also agree with those who said that this issue makes it very clear we need to have some kind of process for setting a general, project-wide policy for what kind of policies packages should set via PolicyKit; this needs to be handled in a joined-up way and with the involvement of the appropriate people (i.e. the security group), not just on an ad hoc level by individual package maintainers. This should be something the FESCo discussion should cover, I think. We need to have a proper definition of our desired default security posture, and proper oversight of the implementation of this. Especially now PolicyKit usage is becoming (rightly!) widespread. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
