On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 22:22 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:17:54 -0800
> Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Here's a second draft, addressing several (not yet all) of the
> > concerns raised about the first.
>
> A few general comments:
>
> - Might be nice to number/letter/enumerate the items... so you can
> point to specific parts without excessive quoting.
Oh, good idea.
> - Is it worth noting ConsoleKit/udev rules here that would give privs
> to local users that remote ones don't get?
>
> - Is it worth noting console users vs remote vs admin user types?
Another good point, I don't think we've touched on whether a remote user
can run {reboot,shutdown} yet.
> - Is dbus security worth mentioning? system vs session and what users
> should be allowed, etc?
>
> > Privilege Escalation Policy (draft)
> ...snip...
> > == Enforcement ==
> >
> > The [[QA]] team will check packages known to be capable of privilege
> > escalation for their compliance with this policy, both through manual
> > examination and automated testing via the AutoQA project.
>
> Would it be worth having some kind of automated script that can find
> packages that might need scrutiny? ie, anything with suid binaries,
> anything with polkit files, anything with consolehelper
If at all possible, I'd like to make use of
https://fedorahosted.org/sectool for this.
> Sort of a critical path of security apps?
>
> Looks like ubuntu has a pretty bare/skeleton policy at:
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityPolicy
> A few things there might be worth adding here.
>
> Anyhow, thanks for taking on this task!
>
> kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
