"Workstation" Product defaults to wide-open firewall

Reindl Harald h.reindl at thelounge.net
Mon Dec 8 15:36:16 UTC 2014

if your discussions leaded to the decisions also used the quoting style 
like in that thread only contain "myself said" i guess what went wrong 
in the first place

i am still unsure if that's

* intentional to mask communication
* just a bad usage of your mail-client

in any case it's not the default behavior if someobdy press "reply"

Am 08.12.2014 um 16:23 schrieb Bastien Nocera:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> On 12/08/2014 03:45 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> On 12/08/2014 03:12 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> On 12/08/2014 12:51 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> This is wrong and you know about that - the firewalld folks have been
>>>>>> urged to use this zone for the Workstation product - it was a
>>>>>> Workstation team decision.
>>>>> What?! We discussed it, and it was deemed acceptable by you, and mitr.
>>>>> We went back and forth on this, and you agreed that it was a good
>>>>> cost/benefit decision.
>>>> We could choose between removing firewalld and accepting this zone ...
>>> Which you could have refused if you felt that it was an unacceptable
>>> compromise.
>>> Which you didn't do. Are you still going to argue that this wasn't
>>> _vouched_ for
>>> by you and the other firewall stakeholders?
>> Yes, exactly in the same way as I could say "no" to the removal of all
>> firewall UI tools ...
> It's not in the default installation because it's not needed. It wouldn't have
> been needed either for any of the other possible options.
> Also, the "we had a choice between removing firewalld or accepting this zone" is
> completely untrue. Fesco had refused the removal of the firewall in the past,
> and I don't think that it would have been accepted this time either. So modifying
> the default firewall, or modifying the firewall interaction was necessary.
> Given that the firewall doesn't protect any data in the session whether with the
> workstation zone, or with a fully blocking one (apart from one that disallows any
> networking, obviously), then I don't see what the problem is here.
> The firewall in the session didn't improve security, it slightly improved privacy though,
> which is something that we've looked into, and implemented a new sharing framework
> to avoid sharing services being launched in networks where it wasn't intended. We also
> changed the default avahi configuration to not leak information about the machine.
> The net result is that the only services running on a default Workstation installation will
> be as a consequence of users turning them on. No information about the user is leaked unless
> they choose to share it by sharing data.
> Having a good default also means that we avoid the turning off of the firewall as a big
> hammer, just as we protect users better by enabling an SELinux with configurations that work
> by default, and why it's a problem when SELinux gets in the way of user wanting things to work.
> See also:
> http://www.superlectures.com/guadec2013/more-secure-with-less-security
> Consider this my closing note on this subject.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20141208/982a96ba/attachment.sig>

More information about the devel mailing list