<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:53 PM, P J P <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in" target="_blank">pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> Hello Simo,<br>
<span class=""><br>
> On Wednesday, 14 January 2015 2:29 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:<br>
> Sorry this is false. You got enough emails telling you this<br>
> change is undesirable, that's the definition of opposition<br>
> and means you have no _consensus_.<br>
<br>
<br>
</span> IIUC, that was for disabling remote root access completely with 'PermitRootLogin=no'.<br>
As the 'PermitRootLoing=without-password' option seems more preferred. As for the emails,<br>
many folks have also said that it is a useful change.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Assuming this applies to Server, with no change to Workstation (sshd remains disabled by default, and 'PermitRootLogin=yes'). Otherwise I predict the people who systemctl enable/start sshd and still can't get it work are going to be irritated they have to also go edit a configuration file. So they're going to be annoyed, and thwart the very thing the proposal is trying to prevent. It's pretty unlikely these users are going to instead learn to use key authentication. And if they aren't willing to do that, why is it anyone else's responsibility to baby sit them?</div><div><br></div></div><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">Chris Murphy</div>
</div></div>