"Workstation" Product defaults to wide-open firewall
Stephen John Smoogen
smooge at gmail.com
Mon Dec 8 23:31:35 UTC 2014
On 8 December 2014 at 16:17, Mike Pinkerton <pselists at mindspring.com> wrote:
> We could have decided to double-down on growing that enthusiast
>> segment, but, first, that's not what the people who showed up to do the
>> work decided; and second, I actually think we continue to serve the
>> hackers and tinkerers very nicely with the spins and nonproduct option.
>> What we're not doing is expanding
> I'm not suggesting that Fedora not expand into a new market segment. I'm
> simply suggesting that you not abandon existing users in order to do so.
That works in a standard commercial environment where you are able to get
the original users to 'give payment' which helps continual funding that
work. However in a volunteer organization.. if people don't do the work,
then it isn't going to get done. And there is always a lot of work in
keeping something going from release to release.
> I also think you're also kind of setting up an argument against
>> something no-one is for. "Secure by default" is a not a well-defined
> I can't quite parse that, but I think you are intentionally
> misunderstanding what I wrote. "Secure by default" might not be a detailed
> specification, but it is certainly understood as a general user
> expectation, one that I think Fedora has heretofore generally met.
No, even in the security community.. it has no single idea. I have spent
more time getting multiple teams to define each's version of "secure by
default" so that they quit arguing that the other guys aren't that way.. I
don't agree with how the firewall is setup on workstation, but I have seen
multiple definitions that match "secure by default" that it still meets.
Stephen J Smoogen.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the devel