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