-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 04:53:43 +0000 (UTC) P J P <pj.pandit@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tuesday, 13 January 2015 3:06 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > > (The general theme of this mail: Being flexible is fine, and > > establishing this through this discussion is great; however, > > ultimately the Change proposal needs to document the _specific > > outcome_ of that discussion.²) > > I understand, I'll do that. > > > “Can be” or “will be”? How? It is vaguely worrying that the > > Change proposal explicitly lists only the most trivial task to do > > (change a sshd.conf option) and is only fairly generic about how > > other parts of the OS and users need to and/or will adapt. > > Well, part of it was due to unknown use-cases of how users would be > affected by this change. Otherwise, immediate straight forward effect > is that users would have to create & use non-root accounts first. > I've tried to collate more details > > here -> https://www.piratepad.ca/p/ssh-remoterootloigin > > > “Could conditionally“… With my FESCo hat on, during the Change > > Checkpoints FESCo will need to know whether the Change is > > sufficiently complete or whether to fall back to the contingency > > plan. Having a “Could conditionally” nailed down to yes or no > > would prevent general unhappiness if the respective package > > maintainers thought that they have done the right thing and FESCo > > during review suddenly decided that the right thing is the opposite. > > Right, I understand. It's 'could conditionally' because it's still > early stage proposed change in workflow. > > > So this proposal only helps if we hope that a bot won’t try the > > right user name; calling this security by obscurity is not too wide > > off the mark. > > > I beg to differ here a little. Because nothing is stopping them > from trying non-root accounts now and even with 'without-password' > option, nothing changes for non-root accounts. The proposed change > and use of 'PermitRootLogin' option is only to restrict remote 'root' > access. IMO that's not obscurity. > > So, we do seem to have consensus(at least no opposition) for > 'PermitRootLogin=without-password' option. I'll update the feature > page with it and details about the specific use-cases. There is no consensus on that. I do not do enough installs that I use kickstart so can not put a key in place. On a freshly installed system I have to log in as root with a password to do configuration. I strongly suspect that I am not alone here. You need to talk to the anaconda team and work out a plan to deal with all the different options. up to and including having the current defaults exist when only a root account is configured with only a password for authentication. I suspect that to properly support making changes here it needs to be strongly tied into anaconda changes that manage the initial sshd config file. Dennis -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUtUkxAAoJEH7ltONmPFDRuo0QAKhPOBWtsbPVQwwiPbMG6IcU rKFh3ItDN5MmTiomGfOiyTKNg9aiOq+nygeC+imMr8gmRIASey3kYNaUAGZsdO3Y 3nq5c3YJyv2rcesRJFCsvu6Odr5KhcOTSOJeMrbbCuT/WvOOK49NPBxIkA5DiDUY UZlKt7FHEAKj5kEdstGgkRKtZrU89TLZd0LG0Ko/HJSkkA5QRopE28z5DOxzD0gr 1Jr5LLbXBVy2ZNYZQY3rUDmbz1w+qZfRz1mPKR+SVsy+BzxYkrCazM8Qd57aJsWz lb+LAg24sLamax4wiTRJ2FG8XyQ9HmrofpKaYiuRM5xtZG8yHXr0JGKbxEjKJqUv H8GsFmGnuRQpH/usb7uVTMnF7AAlcAo1YpUrOUuSlPtizXq86hu4rAm95JxrQetI L31o0Bmf56JptO3hCAPVuqCiUKv4Qbzgj5x0Qljgm8tCdzaWhVIiuqg9WBGovGYT ajlNNjSYLhLswPf37q6E1O2IkPd5a8VlJ/+oGXcm2YcVAlY2lhrufNEb8QmnebxM 5wnX+wB4tx6+7V5MypfDH66UrxGz4YkIJKFvEcy21bBO1f7savyzOgJA/0yk1UNJ U6889pxdhjrrRYPD9YI9HMaGxuZxrCRmGhWwrPWm3fpLMFFh0Qvi320O+nWuvRd4 08m+hckd0KadFeFqwsE1 =3RoX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
