FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-21-2008, 12:45 PM
Michael J Gruber
 
Default non-disclosure of infrastructure problem a management issue?

Bjoern Tore Sund venit, vidit, dixit 21.08.2008 11:04:
> It has now been a full week since the first announcement that Fedora had
> "infrastructure problems" and to stop updating systems. Since then there
> has been two updates to the announcement, none of which have modified the
> "don't update" advice and noen of which has been specific as to the exact
> nature of the problems. At one point we received a list of servers, but
> not services, which were back up and running.
>
> The University of Bergen has 500 linux clients running Fedora. We
> average one reinstall/fresh install per day, often doing quite a lot
> more. Installs and reinstalls has had to stop completely, nightly updates
> have stopped, and until the nature of the problem is revealed we don't
> even know for certain whether it is safe for our IT staff to type admin
> passwords to our (RHEL-based, for the most part) servers from these work
> stations.
>
> Sometimes unfortunate events happen beyond anyone's control. We
> understand this as well as anyone. We trust the assurances that the
> infrastructure team is working hard on resolving the matter and are
> greatful to them for the job they do. So far nothing that has happened
> with this issue has reflected poorly on them.
>
> Sadly, the same cannot be said about the Management of the Fedora
> project. Their choice of complete non-disclosure is enough to eradicate
> any and all confidence that Fedora is a trustworthy platform for Linux
> installations. What information they have released has been deliberately
> vague and, frankly, useless. For a day or two to secure things this may
> be a workable strategy. For a full week, not giving the community
> participants any chance whatsoever to protect themselves from threats
> indicated but not specified? This is poor management and poor judgement
> and reflects very badly not only on the Fedora project but on Fedora's
> RedHat sponsor as well. The issue is more than serious enough and has
> gone on for more than long enough that someone higher up the scale should
> have stepped in a long time ago and made sure that all relevant info was
> released to the community.
>
> We strongly encourage both the Fedora management and RedHat as a Fedora
> sponsor to immediately release any and all information relating to the
> current infrastructure problems.
>
> Regards,
>
> -BT, linux client architect, University of Bergen

Well spoken.

I would like to add that several actions have further decreased my
confidence in the decision process:

- A website was put up with a number of new ssh fingerprints we are
supposed to trust.
- We were asked by fedoraproject (via e-mail) to reset our passwords and
reupload keys, even with a 14 days deadline.

If there is an issue severe enough which warrants stopping updates
(which indicates that rpm signing keys have been compromised) why should
we trust those fingerprints and servers?

Michael

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 08-21-2008, 12:56 PM
Alan Cox
 
Default non-disclosure of infrastructure problem a management issue?

> If there is an issue severe enough which warrants stopping updates
> (which indicates that rpm signing keys have been compromised) why should
> we trust those fingerprints and servers?

Because you have no other basis of trust at all if you don't believe the
master keys ?

Or you set up a new infrastructure and create the 'provisional fedora
project' or whatever.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 08-21-2008, 01:21 PM
Michael J Gruber
 
Default non-disclosure of infrastructure problem a management issue?

Alan Cox venit, vidit, dixit 21.08.2008 14:56:
>> If there is an issue severe enough which warrants stopping updates
>> (which indicates that rpm signing keys have been compromised) why
>> should we trust those fingerprints and servers?
>
> Because you have no other basis of trust at all if you don't believe
> the master keys ?

Exactly this is how I came to trust e.g. the rpm signing keys in the
first place: there was no other basis but to trust the master keys in a
"no news is good news" situation where everybody trusted them and no
problems arose. Now there is news - seemingly bad news - and there are
problems. Trust is easily lost but hard to restore. Debian folks can
tell you...

> Or you set up a new infrastructure and create the 'provisional fedora
> project' or whatever.

Don't trust me!

Michael


--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:36 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org