From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f179.google.com (mail-io0-f179.google.com [209.85.223.179]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB0C7199B for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:54:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f179.google.com with SMTP id x94so82868492ioi.3 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 06:54:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kODTLAh4rU3nE1Uw7+qN3KYLMVp/WVHd5CNT49M7EwE=; b=aaO/TgVxdHebR3YvsURzTM+SdH0G6vX0utknsXqO7oGWjhiSXcswC8VKXslEHkIO8m G2r2QKWoYIbNCqk8ICBJV/2HTPWdsylKDwKHtLcQKDfkQIxIOPM9SqWfzyJ59FykcP4E GxWRNtXzTkqTe4Jf4ZYZapnnobphaAm48L7GtcTmV6qzRFSSQvu0VAsTdqDocZ6EHXfb SGbM2eYYwlkHR9fh7lQJgrUapCH9K4uQWSr9SrIyt7I15MqISJ6jjR2WskIYY0w+MydR KSA6F+doaCzbd0RUx9BtV+l+zRi3rWdkNzDDZIjplZndF+84mUZTrwhEaY7MtdwxfuE8 jIfw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kODTLAh4rU3nE1Uw7+qN3KYLMVp/WVHd5CNT49M7EwE=; b=ltmv22oCPcDwPLSa+b2r2TI7ICSQwlElhVa5YETXLMFhpZh4faPmTE6EHeBNdACFuc eddOAHdFtRP0MCCMOFfxHsyQAmACtln7GUC9L3+e1FLS+XTiJLBqVWpmRYrCEF346xYk UgXjBxRTMhNH90V6+GzWaJliLHY+dk6e7Vx3zAtL9WrkTPyw5lEpAw3qfKf7CeO+TDw0 c3EoDRVDujtanV83cMiYDYIbKnMOufC4KDNY4dOPyDN2NQVVSp9CpaWI+mtZj97T6Hin vRndAKGUJNjpovvhllmuSOfzwEtAhz3LVwC6UkhGMoAvXC9D/PUEaSPtwQU+OZZfXeAL g4MQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02sJA1eji9lvKMmEOB3jNxelD48h2lU3oWe4V6EjnKpSL5F5oBYjEPp3Y1xBdGDf8OZ X-Received: by 10.36.103.200 with SMTP id u191mr2525477itc.8.1479999296338; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 06:54:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8D035.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.208.53]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j69sm2828375itb.4.2016.11.24.06.54.52 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 24 Nov 2016 06:54:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1479999290.6873.44.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Philip Balister Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 15:54:50 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <1479899811.31880.37.camel@intel.com> <1525289.rQK3S6YPkZ@peggleto-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com> <27dbd493-5b76-657f-8a1d-57eabe9eebed@windriver.com> <1479973589.6873.15.camel@intel.com> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Paul Eggleton , openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] base-passwd: set root's default password to 'root' X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:54:55 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 2016-11-24 at 09:09 -0500, Philip Balister wrote: > On 11/24/2016 02:46 AM, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > On Thu, 2016-11-24 at 11:38 +0800, Robert Yang wrote: > >> Currently, debug-tweaks is in EXTRA_IMAGE_FEATURES by default for poky, and > >> there is no passwd, so that user can login easily without a passwd, I think > >> that current status is more unsafe ? > > > > Both well-known password and no password are unsafe. User "root" with > > password "root" is not even "more" safe already now, because tools that > > brute-force logins try that. Choosing something else would be a bit > > safer for a short while until the tools add it to their dictionary. > > > > Poky is also targeting a different audience than OE-core. Poky can > > assume to be used in a secure environment, OE-core can't (because it > > might be used for all kinds of devices). > > > > That is the first time I've heard Poky is targeting an audience assumed > to be running in a secure environment. At least the default local.conf seems to be meant for that (easy-of-use for developers preferred over security in a hostile environment). > Should we document what Poky this > somewhere? From where I sit, this seems to be an odd limitation. I'm not aware of a document explicitly documenting this either. I wouldn't call it a limitation, though: a real product could be built with a configuration that doesn't enable debug-tweaks. As Paul said before, more documentation about first boot, login mechanisms, security considerations, etc. certainly would be useful. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.