Re: Security testing: need for a security policy, and a security-critical package process

[Seth Vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Matthias Clasen wrote:

> On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 18:31 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> > Otherwise we open ourselves up to a less-secure-by-default posture in an
> > average install.
> >
> > We've been in that position in the past and it is not a favorable place to
> > be.
>
> We should just avoid to sink tons of QA resources in verifying that a
> theoretical 'unprivileged user' can do nothing, when that role is not
> something anybody would want to use anyway (because it can do nothing)
> and is not the role that most users will actually end up with in a
> typical desktop install.

If someone installing/deploying fedora (or a fedora-derived spin) wants to 
configure a specific user or a set of users to have greater power, then 
they should be able to do that.

The default as shipped in our packages should not empower users 
significantly.

Default strict, configure relaxed.

-sv



--
Fedora-security-list mailing list
Fedora-security-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-security-list