On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 09:17 +0100, Paul Nasrat wrote:
On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 09:13 +0100, Douglas Furlong wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-10-19 at 19:34 +0200, Kyrre Ness Sjobak wrote:
> > tir, 19.10.2004 kl. 07.09 skrev Douglas Furlong:
> > > On Tue, 2004-10-19 at 00:30 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:06:33 +0100, Douglas Furlong
> > > > <snip>
> > > And a nice link from the vino config section to the system-config-
> > > sercuritylevel.
> What is wrong with a user level configuration tool, like redhat-config-
> printer, gdmsetup, or any number of other things, having a link to the
> system-config-securitylelevel which requires root privileges?
> I accepted the "error" in my original statement, but I don't see what
> the problem is with having the above linking together so that the user
> see's where he is meant to go to get the system up and running.
Currently we're not powerful enough in for custom ports. So that a user
requires specific application knowledge to allow - 5900 say rather than
selecting by service.
I'm hoping to fix this after fc3 is out the door. I'd say wait until we
have a easier to understand ui for this.
I guess for the really long run for such "user run servers" we would
want to have something where an app could have a list of allowed ports,
e.g. 5800-5999/tcp for a vnc server (maybe a list of allowed users as
well), and if this app would open a port in the allowed range for
listening, the firewall would open it up as well, and when the app
closes down the port or would otherwise finish, the firewall would close
down the port, too. I could imagine a user space daemon that would do
the opening up/closing down but how it would get notified about a state
change would need some discussion ;-).
Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp(a)redhat.com
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011