| 1 |
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> "Pierre-Yves Rofes" <py@g.o> posted |
| 4 |
> a4345526fd26a2a6f5dd3cccb4e9767d.squirrel@××××××××××.fr, excerpted below, |
| 5 |
> on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:21:55 +0100: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> >> We don't want some still active authorization and key |
| 8 |
> >> from two years ago getting stolen and used to try to slip a bad commit |
| 9 |
> >> under the radar [...] |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > With some devs reviewing gentoo-commits@, I highly doubt that this |
| 12 |
> > commit could go unnoticed more than a few hours. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> That's a relatively new and very good change, and may indeed change the |
| 15 |
> thinking on this one, some. But why even risk that when (as rane just |
| 16 |
> posted) there's all deliberate effort to contact on the way out and a |
| 17 |
> fast return, for someone who hasn't put an away up, has ignored the |
| 18 |
> contact efforts or after being contacted said yes, retire me, and who |
| 19 |
> hasn't had any commits in months already, with no indication that's going |
| 20 |
> to change. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Can you imagine the PR on even a few hours' breach, when it turns out |
| 23 |
> they'd been inactive for years, but their login was still active? Would |
| 24 |
> you want it to be /your/ machines affected? |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Yes, it can happen with even active devs, but the risk is considered |
| 27 |
> worth it there. But devs that have been inactive for months or years, |
| 28 |
> and who have ignored contacts or even asked to be retired after the |
| 29 |
> contact? IMO that's needless risk, (almost) entirely down-side (with |
| 30 |
> "almost" in there only as a CYA on an otherwise absolute "entirely"), |
| 31 |
> especially when reuptake is (as posted) so fast. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> -- |
| 34 |
> Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 35 |
> "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 36 |
> and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
So really an effective solution might be for the recruiters/retirement staff |
| 41 |
to change a user's shell with a script that spits out a message that says |
| 42 |
something to the effect of: |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
"You have been inactive for a while. Please contact recruiters to re-enable |
| 45 |
your account. This was done as a security measure." |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Obviously a little friendlier would be better but everyone gets the gist. |
| 48 |
That'll prevent them from logging into infra boxes and from being able to do |
| 49 |
a commit. |
Archives