libpam

2010-10-22 Thread Lester Pastrana
Hola amigos Necesito hacer un libpam propio para poder autenticar cualquier servicio (postfix, dovecot, ...) contra un webservice que tengo montado. Pero soy un poco nuevo desarrollando para linux y no tengo mucho acceso a Internet. Agradecería cualquier ayuda que me pudieran dar. Solo necesito

Bug#601046: ITP: gtk2-engines-oxygen -- Gtk2 theme that uses Qt/Oxygen to draw its widgets

2010-10-22 Thread Felix Geyer
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Felix Geyer X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org * Package name: gtk2-engines-oxygen Version : 0.6.6 Upstream Author : Cédric Bellegarde * URL : http://kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=129715 * License : GPL2

Emdebian links in Debian pages and local mirrors

2010-10-22 Thread Neil Williams
Emdebian is progressing really quite well, if I say so myself, and our second release of the Grip distribution (binary compatible with Debian) will be ready to be released alongside Squeeze. [0] There are other variations within Emdebian but these are mostly only at proof-of-concept stage; Grip is

Re: [RFC] disabled root account / distinct group for users with administrative privileges

2010-10-22 Thread Carsten Hey
* Simon McVittie [2010-10-22 12:10 +0100]: > On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 at 11:44:31 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that "priv" was occasionally > > used as a username for an ordinary user. > > If I saw it out of context I'd also tend to assume that "priv" is > short f

Re: Work-needing packages report for Oct 22, 2010

2010-10-22 Thread Martin Zobel-Helas
Hi, On Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 00:25:44 +, w...@debian.org wrote: > The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested > through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the > last week. > > Total number of orphaned packages: 0 (new: 0) > Total number of p

Bug#601005: ITP: libpipeline -- pipeline manipulation library

2010-10-22 Thread Colin Watson
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Colin Watson * Package name: libpipeline Version : 1.0.0 Upstream Author : Colin Watson * URL : http://libpipeline.nongnu.org/ * License : GPLv3+ Programming Lang: C Description : pipeline manipulation library

Re: [RFC] disabled root account / distinct group for users with administrative privileges

2010-10-22 Thread Teodor MICU
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: > Carsten Hey writes ("Re: [RFC] disabled root account / distinct group for > users with administrative privileges"): >> A group named sudo or sudoroot is somehow linked to sudo as tool used to >> gain administrative privileges.  No one knows if

Re: [RFC] disabled root account / distinct group for users with administrative privileges

2010-10-22 Thread Simon McVittie
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 at 11:44:31 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that "priv" was occasionally > used as a username for an ordinary user. If I saw it out of context I'd also tend to assume that "priv" is short for "private" instead of "privileged", but perhaps that

Re: [RFC] disabled root account / distinct group for users with administrative privileges

2010-10-22 Thread Simon McVittie
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 at 17:53:53 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: > > It depends on the definition of "equivalent". The definition of root-equivalent I'd use is: if an account is compromised (an attacker gains control of it), and the attacker can get root privileges as a resul

Re: [RFC] disabled root account / distinct group for users with administrative privileges

2010-10-22 Thread Ian Jackson
Carsten Hey writes ("Re: [RFC] disabled root account / distinct group for users with administrative privileges"): > A group named sudo or sudoroot is somehow linked to sudo as tool used to > gain administrative privileges. No one knows if in future an other tool > will be the de facto standard to

Re: Debian bugs #700000 and #1000000 contest

2010-10-22 Thread Jon Dowland
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 05:45:55PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > When writing up this document, it would be useful if you'd address as part > of that document what you would do differently than when we took that > approach in the past and/or why you believe things have changed such that > this won't