[Bug 892673] New: UEFI Secure Boot Guide: suggestions for edits
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Product: Fedora Documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892673
Bug ID: 892673
Summary: UEFI Secure Boot Guide: suggestions for edits
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: uefi-secure-boot-guide
Severity: unspecified
Priority: unspecified
Reporter: fweimer(a)redhat.com
Replace: "With the planned release of Windows 8, Microsoft has decided that all
hardware that is marked "Windows 8 client ready" should"
With: "Microsoft requires that client devices carrying the Windows 8 logo must"
Replace: "This means that Fedora as it stands booted on such hardware will
refuse to boot until the user disables secure boot in the firmware."
With: "The UEFI boot loader on Fedora installation media and on the installed
system are signed with the Microsoft key, to enable booting and installation on
such systems."
Remove the following paragraph, ending in "This plan has been approved by the
Fedora Engineering Steering Committee as of 23-Jul-2012."
After: "any operations from userland which cause userland-defined DMA"
Insert: "disable support for hibernate/suspend-to-disk, and other features
which would allow executing arbitrary code in kernel mode (even for the root
user)."
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
9 years, 10 months
[Bug 782916] New: value of security measures; no metric, no scope description
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: value of security measures; no metric, no scope description
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782916
Summary: value of security measures; no metric, no scope
description
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Platform: Unspecified
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: unspecified
Priority: unspecified
Component: security-guide
AssignedTo: eric(a)christensenplace.us
ReportedBy: budden(a)nps.navy.mil
QAContact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: pkennedy(a)redhat.com, eric(a)christensenplace.us,
security-guide-list(a)redhat.com, oglesbyzm(a)gmail.com
Classification: Fedora
Story Points: ---
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Description of problem:
The juncture between computer security and network security is inadequate --
too many seams which leaves too many man-in-middle attack opportunities.
The most egregious omission in this (otherwise pretty good) document is
treatment of SCOPE. This probably belongs in the vicinity of 1.3.
Analysis first. Map each of the security solutions you have in the guide onto
the ISO Reference Model:
Layer 1/2 security measures (like WiFi security) protect frames. The scope of
the security is limited to a single segment. No security beyond the router and
no security within end systems.
Layer 3 security protected datagrams (VPNs do this, IPSec ....). The scope is
an enclave tunneled through an internetwork. The protection cannot extend
beyond the VPN boxes, so data is wholly unprotected within end systems (and LAN
if the VPN box is associated with the last router).
Layer 4/5 security includes SSL (aka TLS). You have a how-to for securing an
http server (good) but no admonitions regarding scope -- the security extends
from the TCP socket in one end system to the TCP socket at the other end of the
connection -- again no security inside the OS comes from SSL.
All of the above security measures protect infrastructure. But they do not
protect the data.
Layer 6/7 security measures protect the data. Here the scope _can be_ truly
end to end. S/MIME is a good example (so is ssh and XML sign/crypt) where the
data passes over the internet and through the OS in protected form. Only in a
fairly small space is the data unprotected. In Evolution, for example, only
the parts of the UA that deal with composing, reading, ... mail are places
where the authenticity and confidentiality of the data is possible. Most of
the rest of the UA (including all the filing system deals with data that has
been protected exactly the way it's been sent over the network. In the case of
Evolution (UAs differ in implementation) secured data is stored in the file
system exactly the way it was transmitted.
Recommendations:
1) include a mapping similar to above so users have an idea what the scope of
this or that security measure is.
2) emphasize those security measures that apply to applications (layer 6/7) as
Fedora distribution evolves and matures. (What got me here this morning is the
continuing frustration getting Evolution to properly play ball with DoD CAC
cards ... works, but doesn't 'just work').
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Security Guide 16.3 (doesn't have a date)
How reproducible:
The above analysis doesn't invent anything; it only organizes and sorts.
Anyone can reproduce it.
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
Actual results:
Expected results:
Additional info:
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
9 years, 10 months
[Bug 1005452] New: Outdated information
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005452
Bug ID: 1005452
Summary: Outdated information
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: rpm-guide
Severity: medium
Assignee: bcotton+fedora(a)gmail.com
Reporter: cickumqt(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: bcotton+fedora(a)gmail.com, pkovar(a)redhat.com,
zach(a)oglesby.co
Quoted from
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/R...:
The RPM bindings for Python are documented along with the C programming API. On
a Red Hat Linux system, look in the file
/usr/share/doc/rpm-devel-4.1/apidocs/html/group__python.html to see the start
of the Python-specific documentation.
Note that much of this online documentation covers the C functions that provide
the Python bindings, not the Python API itself. But, if you examine the online
information on objects listed as classes, such as rpmts, you can find the
Python-specific documentation.
Furthermore, if you look into the .c files that make up the Python bindings,
you can find PyMethodDef structure tables. These tables provide useful glimpses
into the Python API.
To learn more about programming in Python, install the python-docs package. The
python-docs package has a large set of online documentation for Python,
including the official Python Tutorial. With Red Hat Linux, start at
/usr/share/doc/python-docs-2.2.1/html/tut/tut.html.
Cross Reference
Other tutorials are available at http://diveintopython.org for the Dive Into
Python tutorial for experienced programmers, and at
http://py.vaults.ca/parnassus/apyllo.py/935043691.636055170 for the Vaults of
Parnassus listing of tutorials.
I think we need to update some words like RPM4.1,
/usr/share/doc/python-docs-2.2.1 (F20 docdir changes) and Red Hat Linux ....
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
9 years, 10 months
[Bug 1084400] Reset root password when booting with init=/bin/bash crash the system
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084400
Stephen Wadeley <swadeley(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |swadeley(a)redhat.com
Component|doc-System_Administrators_G |system-administrator's-guid
|uide |e
Version|7.1 |devel
Assignee|eslobodo(a)redhat.com |swadeley(a)redhat.com
Product|Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 |Fedora Documentation
Target Milestone|rc |---
QA Contact|ecs-bugs(a)redhat.com |docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject
| |.org
--- Comment #19 from Stephen Wadeley <swadeley(a)redhat.com> ---
Hello
My colleague eslobodo confirms that the procedure works fine on RHEL 7 if
SELinux is disabled.
If SELinux is enabled, however, the system won't boot. Running touch
/.autorelablel as suggested in this bug solves it.
I need to update Fedora 20 System Administration Guide.
Thank you
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
9 years, 11 months
[Bug 1047428] New: ABRT section has deprecated service commands
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047428
Bug ID: 1047428
Summary: ABRT section has deprecated service commands
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: system-administrator's-guide
Assignee: swadeley(a)redhat.com
Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: swadeley(a)redhat.com
Created attachment 843622
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=843622&action=edit
This patch corrects the reported issue.
The ABRT section has commands that use the deprecated service and chkconfig
utilities instead of systemctl. The section should be updated to reflect the
migration to systemd.
I have attached a patch to correct this, please review and apply. Feedback
would be welcome.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
9 years, 11 months
[Bug 1099009] New: arping manpage should define return values
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1099009
Bug ID: 1099009
Summary: arping manpage should define return values
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: docs-requests
Severity: low
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: jeharris(a)redhat.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org, sparks(a)redhat.com,
stickster(a)gmail.com, zach(a)oglesby.co
Description of problem:
Missing information: the manpage for "arping" (section 8) should define for
all cases the return value.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
arping utility, iputils-s20121221
How reproducible:
Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. "man arping"
2.
3.
Actual results:
Manpage output.
Expected results:
Manpage output including defined return values for the utiliity.
Additional info:
The return for one case of the "-D" option use is defined. The obvious
opposite case isn't (and the ifup-eth scripts depends on the behaviour).
Non-D-option use return value is not documented at all.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
9 years, 11 months
[Bug 672494] Sentences not translatable in two parts
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672494
Piotr Drąg <piotrdrag(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Last Closed| |2014-05-08 12:28:28
--- Comment #4 from Piotr Drąg <piotrdrag(a)gmail.com> ---
Fedora 14 is ancient at this point.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
9 years, 12 months