Firewall confusion
in [Suse]
|
Prev: Do I have a Virus?
Next: making an rpm package
From: Baron on 28 Dec 2009 12:30 Stephen Horne Inscribed thus: > It may well be a non-issue - probably is - but in that case, why is > everyone so seriously oversensitive? Because you are coming across as someone who is trolling ! -- Best Regards: Baron.
From: Baron on 28 Dec 2009 14:20 J G Miller Inscribed thus: > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:05:29 +0000, Paul J Gans wrote: > >> In general NOTHING connects to the internet without you telling >> it to do that. > > ... > >> the updater applet (or YAST) will tell you if updates are >> available. > > Except as you have just pointed out, the updater applet. Yes it will, but only if you have told it to do that. Even then you still have to approve the update ! -- Best Regards: Baron.
From: Stephen Horne on 28 Dec 2009 14:14 On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:49:01 +0100, J G Miller <miller(a)yoyo.ORG> wrote: >Have you heard of apparmor? > > <http://www.novell.COM/linux/security/apparmor//overview.html> > >Have you looked at the configuration files in /etc/apparmor.d? It looks so far like AppArmor is what I was looking for, though I'm not 100% sure yet. Thanks. central - thanks to you to, for the same suggestion.
From: Stephen Horne on 28 Dec 2009 14:43 On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:11 +0100, Peter K�hlmann <peter-koehlmann(a)t-online.de> wrote: >Stephen Horne wrote: > >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:45:56 +0100, Peter K�hlmann >> <peter-koehlmann(a)t-online.de> wrote: >> >>>"why is it OK for Linux apps to request the root password" >>> >>>Your words. Well, tell us what linux apps a normal user would run need >>>root access. Be precise >> >> Deliberate out-of-context selective misleading quoting. > >No. Those are your words > >Here is the full sentence: >"If the idea of asking at the time is really so dumb, then why is it OK >for Linux apps to request the root password when they need extra >priviledges?" > >So you tell us that it is OK for ZoneAlarm to ask for user confirmation >what only root should be allowed to do, and that it is similar to linux >apps needing root. No - never happened. You see, the whole concept of root access has no meaning on Windows, at least as normally used. I never said ZoneAlarm is model to follow in Linux. As for "asking at the time", you know full well that I'd already agreed that ZoneAlarm just asking yes/know is stupid, and that a root password should be needed for the needed configuration change, avoiding accidental wrong-keypress-at-the-time and someone-who-shouldn't-have-root-access issues at the same time. Prompting at the time a priviledge is needed is something that can and does happen in Linux. Like it or not, it isn't simply the "Windows" way - in fact it isn't the Windows way at all - and it is a separate issue from whether or not configuration changes are achieved without root access. I never once claimed that the configuration change should occur without a root password being supplied. What might have started as a misunderstanding is now clearly just your pathetic excuse for acting the arshole and refusing to admit you could ever make a mistake. Thanks for restoring context, though, to make the point that I *wasn't* asking "why ...", but sarcastically asking you "If ..., why ...." WRT your previous stupidity. >You are not only totally incompetent, you are a liar. You made up your >"linux apps needing root" out of full cloth. There simply *are* *none* >which a normal user would (or ever should) run Of course not. That's why those standard apps that, when run in a user account, need extra priviledges, have to ask for the root password - because they should not be free for any user to do what he likes with. That is the whole point - that prompt asking the user for extra priviledges, with the password to prove he has the right to give them. Just like, for example, configuring applications access to the internet, which you alternately argue (a) should not be restricted at all because Linux doesn't do it and therefore its pointless and stupid (though it turns out that Linux is perfectly capable of doing it, as I guessed some time ago), then (b) is sensitive enough that the configuration should require root access, which I am in perfect agreement with, and always was. Two mutually incompatible positions, and a whole load of screaming nonsense to try to hide that fact. Pathetic.
From: Stephen Horne on 28 Dec 2009 14:43
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:49:01 +0100, J G Miller <miller(a)yoyo.ORG> wrote: >Have you heard of apparmor? > > <http://www.novell.COM/linux/security/apparmor//overview.html> > >Have you looked at the configuration files in /etc/apparmor.d? It looks so far like AppArmor is what I was looking for, though I'm not 100% sure yet. Thanks. central - thanks to you to, for the same suggestion. |