On 3/10/06, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This has already been discussed in the lists before. If a person has > physical access to the system, he can always turn it off or set your > system on fire, so merely controlling the ability to turn off or reboot > the system doesnt provide any real security and is a hiderance to > getting work done. This is by no means a blocker bug that needs to be > dealt with one week before a release anyway. I wonder.... would it be possible for a local admin to write a custom pam stack which made the issue of a "guest" getting these "console" permission... without getting into the whole discussion of the underlying pointlessness of it to protect against malicious users intent on turning off a system. It maybe ultimately pointless, but its not worth arguing about. If there is a way right now to rewrite pam related configurations to make this issue go away.. i think we should just write it down in the wiki and point anyone complaining about this to the wiki. -jef"You can't talk sense into a local sysadmin intent on perverting your worldview as to what correct behavior is... just appease them as quickly as possible and move on"spaleta -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list