docs-qa May 2014

docs-qa@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
157 discussions

[Bug 892673] New: UEFI Secure Boot Guide: suggestions for edits
by Red Hat Bugzilla 27 Jun '14

27 Jun '14

Product: Fedora Documentation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892673 Bug ID: 892673 Summary: UEFI Secure Boot Guide: suggestions for edits Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: uefi-secure-boot-guide Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Reporter: fweimer(a)redhat.com Replace: "With the planned release of Windows 8, Microsoft has decided that all hardware that is marked "Windows 8 client ready" should" With: "Microsoft requires that client devices carrying the Windows 8 logo must" Replace: "This means that Fedora as it stands booted on such hardware will refuse to boot until the user disables secure boot in the firmware." With: "The UEFI boot loader on Fedora installation media and on the installed system are signed with the Microsoft key, to enable booting and installation on such systems." Remove the following paragraph, ending in "This plan has been approved by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee as of 23-Jul-2012." After: "any operations from userland which cause userland-defined DMA" Insert: "disable support for hibernate/suspend-to-disk, and other features which would allow executing arbitrary code in kernel mode (even for the root user)." -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 1

[Bug 782916] New: value of security measures; no metric, no scope description
by Red Hat Bugzilla 27 Jun '14

27 Jun '14

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: value of security measures; no metric, no scope description https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782916 Summary: value of security measures; no metric, no scope description Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: security-guide AssignedTo: eric(a)christensenplace.us ReportedBy: budden(a)nps.navy.mil QAContact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pkennedy(a)redhat.com, eric(a)christensenplace.us, security-guide-list(a)redhat.com, oglesbyzm(a)gmail.com Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Description of problem: The juncture between computer security and network security is inadequate -- too many seams which leaves too many man-in-middle attack opportunities. The most egregious omission in this (otherwise pretty good) document is treatment of SCOPE. This probably belongs in the vicinity of 1.3. Analysis first. Map each of the security solutions you have in the guide onto the ISO Reference Model: Layer 1/2 security measures (like WiFi security) protect frames. The scope of the security is limited to a single segment. No security beyond the router and no security within end systems. Layer 3 security protected datagrams (VPNs do this, IPSec ....). The scope is an enclave tunneled through an internetwork. The protection cannot extend beyond the VPN boxes, so data is wholly unprotected within end systems (and LAN if the VPN box is associated with the last router). Layer 4/5 security includes SSL (aka TLS). You have a how-to for securing an http server (good) but no admonitions regarding scope -- the security extends from the TCP socket in one end system to the TCP socket at the other end of the connection -- again no security inside the OS comes from SSL. All of the above security measures protect infrastructure. But they do not protect the data. Layer 6/7 security measures protect the data. Here the scope _can be_ truly end to end. S/MIME is a good example (so is ssh and XML sign/crypt) where the data passes over the internet and through the OS in protected form. Only in a fairly small space is the data unprotected. In Evolution, for example, only the parts of the UA that deal with composing, reading, ... mail are places where the authenticity and confidentiality of the data is possible. Most of the rest of the UA (including all the filing system deals with data that has been protected exactly the way it's been sent over the network. In the case of Evolution (UAs differ in implementation) secured data is stored in the file system exactly the way it was transmitted. Recommendations: 1) include a mapping similar to above so users have an idea what the scope of this or that security measure is. 2) emphasize those security measures that apply to applications (layer 6/7) as Fedora distribution evolves and matures. (What got me here this morning is the continuing frustration getting Evolution to properly play ball with DoD CAC cards ... works, but doesn't 'just work'). Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Security Guide 16.3 (doesn't have a date) How reproducible: The above analysis doesn't invent anything; it only organizes and sorts. Anyone can reproduce it. Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.

1 2

[Bug 1005452] New: Outdated information
by Red Hat Bugzilla 19 Jun '14

19 Jun '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005452 Bug ID: 1005452 Summary: Outdated information Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: rpm-guide Severity: medium Assignee: bcotton+fedora(a)gmail.com Reporter: cickumqt(a)gmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: bcotton+fedora(a)gmail.com, pkovar(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Quoted from http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/RPM…: The RPM bindings for Python are documented along with the C programming API. On a Red Hat Linux system, look in the file /usr/share/doc/rpm-devel-4.1/apidocs/html/group__python.html to see the start of the Python-specific documentation. Note that much of this online documentation covers the C functions that provide the Python bindings, not the Python API itself. But, if you examine the online information on objects listed as classes, such as rpmts, you can find the Python-specific documentation. Furthermore, if you look into the .c files that make up the Python bindings, you can find PyMethodDef structure tables. These tables provide useful glimpses into the Python API. To learn more about programming in Python, install the python-docs package. The python-docs package has a large set of online documentation for Python, including the official Python Tutorial. With Red Hat Linux, start at /usr/share/doc/python-docs-2.2.1/html/tut/tut.html. Cross Reference Other tutorials are available at http://diveintopython.org for the Dive Into Python tutorial for experienced programmers, and at http://py.vaults.ca/parnassus/apyllo.py/935043691.636055170 for the Vaults of Parnassus listing of tutorials. I think we need to update some words like RPM4.1, /usr/share/doc/python-docs-2.2.1 (F20 docdir changes) and Red Hat Linux .... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 1

[Bug 1084400] Reset root password when booting with init=/bin/bash crash the system
by Red Hat Bugzilla 30 May '14

30 May '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084400 Stephen Wadeley <swadeley(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |swadeley(a)redhat.com Component|doc-System_Administrators_G |system-administrator's-guid |uide |e Version|7.1 |devel Assignee|eslobodo(a)redhat.com |swadeley(a)redhat.com Product|Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 |Fedora Documentation Target Milestone|rc |--- QA Contact|ecs-bugs(a)redhat.com |docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject | |.org --- Comment #19 from Stephen Wadeley <swadeley(a)redhat.com> --- Hello My colleague eslobodo confirms that the procedure works fine on RHEL 7 if SELinux is disabled. If SELinux is enabled, however, the system won't boot. Running touch /.autorelablel as suggested in this bug solves it. I need to update Fedora 20 System Administration Guide. Thank you -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1047428] New: ABRT section has deprecated service commands
by Red Hat Bugzilla 28 May '14

28 May '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047428 Bug ID: 1047428 Summary: ABRT section has deprecated service commands Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: system-administrator's-guide Assignee: swadeley(a)redhat.com Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: swadeley(a)redhat.com Created attachment 843622 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=843622&action=edit This patch corrects the reported issue. The ABRT section has commands that use the deprecated service and chkconfig utilities instead of systemctl. The section should be updated to reflect the migration to systemd. I have attached a patch to correct this, please review and apply. Feedback would be welcome. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 1

[Bug 1099009] New: arping manpage should define return values
by Red Hat Bugzilla 19 May '14

19 May '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1099009 Bug ID: 1099009 Summary: arping manpage should define return values Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: docs-requests Severity: low Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: jeharris(a)redhat.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org, sparks(a)redhat.com, stickster(a)gmail.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Description of problem: Missing information: the manpage for "arping" (section 8) should define for all cases the return value. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): arping utility, iputils-s20121221 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. "man arping" 2. 3. Actual results: Manpage output. Expected results: Manpage output including defined return values for the utiliity. Additional info: The return for one case of the "-D" option use is defined. The obvious opposite case isn't (and the ifup-eth scripts depends on the behaviour). Non-D-option use return value is not documented at all. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 1

[Bug 672494] Sentences not translatable in two parts
by Red Hat Bugzilla 08 May '14

08 May '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672494 Piotr Drąg <piotrdrag(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed| |2014-05-08 12:28:28 --- Comment #4 from Piotr Drąg <piotrdrag(a)gmail.com> --- Fedora 14 is ancient at this point. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

docs-qa May 2014