|| ||Hans Witvliet <suse-AT-a-domani.nl> |
|| ||suserocks-AT-bryen.com |
|| ||Re: Security or Convenience? Defining a better
|| ||Tue, 22 May 2012 21:41:07 +0200|
|| ||Article, Thread
On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 12:46 -0500, Bryen M Yunashko wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 14:40 -0300, Claudio Freire wrote:
> > So I'd kindly suggest that a yast module for that, and sensible
> > defaults, would be a priority.
> Perhaps it would be a better approach here if we came up with a
> comprehensive list of items that need to remain security-protected
> versus not needed. Or does such a list exist somewhere already?
Excuse me for jumping into the middle of the thread..
But does it have to be binary: either-or-not?
I would rather see a more granular approach...
How about defining an "admin" group.
You should be able to add some users to that group.
And all of those "admins" should be able to manage printers, wifi-stuf,
Or even better: create multiple groups: each for its own group of
So some users might be able to fiddle with wifi, but nothing else, while
others are only allowed to do updates
For an ordinary home-users, the default user should be member of all
those admin groups, while on office-laptops, one should be able to do
wifi and printers, but remains properly shielded from installing
I think one should be able to create a reasonable list of allications
that deserve there own admin-group:
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
To contact the owner, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
to post comments)