On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 11:16:18AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:> On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Scott Robbins <scottro at nyc.rr.com> wrote: > > This might show up twice, I think I sent it from a bad address previously. > > If so, please accept my apologies. > > > > > > In Fedora 22, one developer (and only one) decided that if the password > > chosen during installation wasn't of sufficient strength, the install > > wouldn't continue. A bug was filed, and there was also a great deal of > > aggravation about it on the Fedora testing list. So, it was dropped. > > > > However, like a US (and probably other countries) politician who has one > > bad law suddenly exposed, it seems they are doing it for F23, judging from > > a test installation. I've filed a bug if anyone wants to chime in and ask > > them not to do it. > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246771 > > This is a good write up on the story: > https://lwn.net/Articles/639405/ > > And the proposal for Fedora 23: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Standardized_passphrase_policy > > And the discussion for Workstation's behavior: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2015-July/012588.htmlKevin Fenzi responded to my post on Fedora testing saying that at least it is FESCO decisions this time, not just a one man one, and asked for patience. (My knee-jerk response is why are they even discussing it after last time, but I refrained.) Thank you for the links Chris. -- Scott Robbins PGP keyID EB3467D6 ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 ) gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6
On 25/07/15 18:24, Scott Robbins wrote:> On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 11:16:18AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Scott Robbins <scottro at nyc.rr.com> wrote: >>> This might show up twice, I think I sent it from a bad address previously. >>> If so, please accept my apologies. >>> >>> >>> In Fedora 22, one developer (and only one) decided that if the password >>> chosen during installation wasn't of sufficient strength, the install >>> wouldn't continue. A bug was filed, and there was also a great deal of >>> aggravation about it on the Fedora testing list. So, it was dropped. >>> >>> However, like a US (and probably other countries) politician who has one >>> bad law suddenly exposed, it seems they are doing it for F23, judging from >>> a test installation. I've filed a bug if anyone wants to chime in and ask >>> them not to do it. >>> >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246771 >> >> This is a good write up on the story: >> https://lwn.net/Articles/639405/ >> >> And the proposal for Fedora 23: >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Standardized_passphrase_policy >> >> And the discussion for Workstation's behavior: >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2015-July/012588.html > > Kevin Fenzi responded to my post on Fedora testing saying that at least it > is FESCO decisions this time, not just a one man one, and asked for > patience. (My knee-jerk response is why are they even discussing it after > last time, but I refrained.) Thank you for the links Chris. >I can certainly see why it can annoy certain people. I think a better solution to suite both worlds would be to simply have a boot flag on the installation media such as maybe "passwordcheck=true/false" to enable/disable the strength and check features of password entry and simply show a text box (and confirm) if it is disabled without any password checking. This way those who need the check disabled for quick deployments can do so and put a stronger password in later at their own time and choosing. Meanwhile those who wish to have the password checked can also do so. Thus, both people happy :-). Personally, I am neither against the idea, nor for it. It doesn't affect me as I usually use strong passwords regardless. Kind Regards, Jake Shipton (JakeMS) Twitter: @CrazyLinuxNerd GPG Key: 0xE3C31D8F GPG Fingerprint: 7515 CC63 19BD 06F9 400A DE8A 1D0B A5CF E3C3 1D8F
Gordon Messmer
2015-Jul-25 22:00 UTC
[CentOS] Fedora change that will probably affect RHEL
On 07/25/2015 11:45 AM, Jake Shipton wrote:> I think a better solution to suite both worlds would be to simply have a > boot flag on the installation media such as maybe > "passwordcheck=true/false"https://xkcd.com/1172/ It's practically a law that every time someone's workflow is broken, they request an option to change it. Personally, I'm against it. Putting a weak password into the installer *is* a request for a weak password. There's no reason to request a weak password twice (with a boot arg and a weak password) when the alternative is to graphically represent the password strength and let the user decide. I don't like the change, but at the same time I do all of my installs with kickstart, and such installs are not affected. Kickstart files can contain a hashed password, and since a hashed password can't be checked, it can't be rejected. Thus, any decision FESCO makes won't affect me at all.