Is it a bug or intentional design? In Anaconda, when you create root password it is not checked for complexity but password for regular user account is.
This is F19 Beta RC2 netinstall.
Mateusz Marzantowicz
On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 21:35 +0200, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
Is it a bug or intentional design? In Anaconda, when you create root password it is not checked for complexity but password for regular user account is.
Um, I'm pretty sure it is checked. It may not follow precisely the same rules as other checks, I guess, but I get a warning when I use '111111' that it's a palindrome.
On 21.05.2013 21:36, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 21:35 +0200, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
Is it a bug or intentional design? In Anaconda, when you create root password it is not checked for complexity but password for regular user account is.
Um, I'm pretty sure it is checked. It may not follow precisely the same rules as other checks, I guess, but I get a warning when I use '111111' that it's a palindrome.
OK, I see it now, but for regular user there is this "progress bar like" indicator which tells you how strong is your password. For root I only get textual warning.
Mateusz Marzantowicz
On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 21:41 +0200, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
On 21.05.2013 21:36, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 21:35 +0200, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
Is it a bug or intentional design? In Anaconda, when you create root password it is not checked for complexity but password for regular user account is.
Um, I'm pretty sure it is checked. It may not follow precisely the same rules as other checks, I guess, but I get a warning when I use '111111' that it's a palindrome.
OK, I see it now, but for regular user there is this "progress bar like" indicator which tells you how strong is your password. For root I only get textual warning.
Ah, I see what you mean. Yeah, it seems reasonable to add that for root, since as you say, it shows up for the user spoke (and you also get the strength meter for the encryption passphrase, if you select encryption). File a bug?
On 21.05.2013 21:43, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 21:41 +0200, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
On 21.05.2013 21:36, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 21:35 +0200, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
Is it a bug or intentional design? In Anaconda, when you create root password it is not checked for complexity but password for regular user account is.
Um, I'm pretty sure it is checked. It may not follow precisely the same rules as other checks, I guess, but I get a warning when I use '111111' that it's a palindrome.
OK, I see it now, but for regular user there is this "progress bar like" indicator which tells you how strong is your password. For root I only get textual warning.
Ah, I see what you mean. Yeah, it seems reasonable to add that for root, since as you say, it shows up for the user spoke (and you also get the strength meter for the encryption passphrase, if you select encryption). File a bug?
Here it is, please check it's filed correctly: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=965832
Mateusz Marzantowicz
let me hijack ... does the strenght meter still think that a correct horse battery stapple-like password is weak?
K.
Dne Út 21. května 2013 12:43:30, Adam Williamson napsal(a):
On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 21:41 +0200, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
On 21.05.2013 21:36, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 21:35 +0200, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
Is it a bug or intentional design? In Anaconda, when you create root password it is not checked for complexity but password for regular user account is.
Um, I'm pretty sure it is checked. It may not follow precisely the same rules as other checks, I guess, but I get a warning when I use '111111' that it's a palindrome.
OK, I see it now, but for regular user there is this "progress bar like" indicator which tells you how strong is your password. For root I only get textual warning.
Ah, I see what you mean. Yeah, it seems reasonable to add that for root, since as you say, it shows up for the user spoke (and you also get the strength meter for the encryption passphrase, if you select encryption). File a bug?
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 07:48:23AM -0700, richard.vickeryrv@gmail.com wrote: [removed tons of garbage in a single gigantic line] <div style="">Could we please keep to bottle-posting? This kind of forces the reader to read the entire post and get the context </div></body>
As much as I agree: you are aware that you're asking this from a frickin' HTML-only mail?
Lars
Dne Čt 23. května 2013 11:51:19, Lars Seipel napsal(a):
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 07:48:23AM -0700, richard.vickeryrv@gmail.com wrote: [removed tons of garbage in a single gigantic line]
<div style="">Could we please keep to bottle-posting? This kind of forces the reader to read the entire post and get the context </div></body>
As much as I agree: you are aware that you're asking this from a frickin' HTML-only mail?
hm, nice to get two replies discussing the form and zero replies on the topic
while I hate top posting, in this case I found it appropriate as there was no _direct_ connection to anything written so far - and I thought I made it clear talking about hijacking, which is understood as going off-topic
however, I didn't want to start a new thread, hoping to better draw attention from a person with recent experience with that strenght meter (Mateusz)
OTOH, I didn't remove the previous text to allow to "get the context" without having to browse the archive if someone feels the (unnecessary) need
K.
On 05/23/2013 11:51 AM, Karel Volný wrote:
Dne Čt 23. května 2013 11:51:19, Lars Seipel napsal(a):
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 07:48:23AM -0700, richard.vickeryrv@gmail.com wrote: [removed tons of garbage in a single gigantic line]
<div style="">Could we please keep to bottle-posting? This kind of forces the reader to read the entire post and get the context </div></body>
As much as I agree: you are aware that you're asking this from a frickin' HTML-only mail?
hm, nice to get two replies discussing the form and zero replies on the topic
while I hate top posting, in this case I found it appropriate as there was no _direct_ connection to anything written so far - and I thought I made it clear talking about hijacking, which is understood as going off-topic
however, I didn't want to start a new thread, hoping to better draw attention from a person with recent experience with that strenght meter (Mateusz)
OTOH, I didn't remove the previous text to allow to "get the context" without having to browse the archive if someone feels the (unnecessary) need
K.
The test list follows [1] which mention no html mail [2] and no top posting [3]
Those that do not follow the official project mailing list guidelines risk the appearance and smiting from POC and will be sentenced to 3 weeks of java triaging ;)
JBG
1. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines 2. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines#No_HTML_Mail.2C_Please 3. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines#If_You_Are_Replying_to...
On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 12:44 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
Those that do not follow the official project mailing list guidelines risk the appearance and smiting from POC and will be sentenced to 3 weeks of java triaging ;)
Nonono, they will be sentenced to clean up the texlive spec file.
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 01:51:09PM +0200, Karel Volný wrote:
hm, nice to get two replies discussing the form and zero replies on the topic
Uhm, sorry. To add something to the topic: it seems that Anaconda (as of Beta RC4) considers CorrectHorseBatteryStaple-like passwords to be strong.
Lars