On Monday 03 May 2010 03:31:08 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 2 May 2010 23:57:53 +0200 Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > * Alec Warner schrieb:
> > > Except as stated they are not fixed (as Fabian pointed out). I'm
> > > happy to support something like setting ROOT_UID and ROOT_GID in
> > > gentoo-x86 pr
On Sun, 2 May 2010 23:57:53 +0200
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Alec Warner schrieb:
>
> > Except as stated they are not fixed (as Fabian pointed out). I'm
> > happy to support something like setting ROOT_UID and ROOT_GID in
> > gentoo-x86 profiles and using those. Then if you want to do
> > some
* Stefan Behte schrieb:
> in some environments you have to rename "root" to something else, just
> to be compliant to a (maybe dumb) security policy. This might be the
> case for PCI, and as far as I remember, it is necessary (not just
> "recommended") for a BSI Grundschutz certification (meaning
* Krzysztof Pawlik schrieb:
> Interesting... to me that's not only stupid but also kinda useless - there's
> no
> difference between brute-forcing a password for user named 'foo' or 'root' -
> user name doesn't matter much. Actually according to my ssh logs attackers
> usually don't even try roo
* Alec Warner schrieb:
> Except as stated they are not fixed (as Fabian pointed out). I'm
> happy to support something like setting ROOT_UID and ROOT_GID in
> gentoo-x86 profiles and using those. Then if you want to do something
> utterly ridiculous to your system you can just set the appropria
02.05.2010 17:23, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
> Interesting... to me that's not only stupid but also kinda useless - there's
> no
> difference between brute-forcing a password for user named 'foo' or 'root' -
> user name doesn't matter much.
> It's better to disable password-based remote login altoget
Hi,
in some environments you have to rename "root" to something else, just
to be compliant to a (maybe dumb) security policy. This might be the
case for PCI, and as far as I remember, it is necessary (not just
"recommended") for a BSI Grundschutz certification (meaning something
like "basic securi
On 05/02/10 16:13, Stefan Behte wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in some environments you have to rename "root" to something else, just
> to be compliant to a (maybe dumb) security policy. This might be the
> case for PCI, and as far as I remember, it is necessary (not just
> "recommended") for a BSI Grundschutz
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to put an emphasis on the fact that many eclasses
> and ebuilds in gx86 are relying on an assumption that the superuser
> account is always supposed to be named 'root'.
>
> In fact, no such constraint exists. Although
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to put an emphasis on the fact that many eclasses
> and ebuilds in gx86 are relying on an assumption that the superuser
> account is always supposed to be named 'root'.
>
> In fact, no such constraint exists. Although
On 30-04-2010 20:07:26 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> In my opinion, that policy should clearly indicate that the numeric
> UID/GID should be always used for referencing the superuser account
> as they are fixed unlike the names.
Just to complicate matters a bit, there are platforms where the
equiva
11 matches
Mail list logo
