From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Wed Feb 22 22:46:14 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6A90CE9089; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 22:46:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yaneurabeya@gmail.com) Received: from mail-qk0-x236.google.com (mail-qk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85A031375; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 22:46:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yaneurabeya@gmail.com) Received: by mail-qk0-x236.google.com with SMTP id s186so17122783qkb.1; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 14:46:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kZ1g0nsEtFN18O+j4nN5MOhdJsOjsFVoJ5f5u8W0KCE=; b=ayLye6PJtXLTzI6hL3L0ofXzP1MeR39VBJBn6768Zm45A8ChIaP9pXx5bzf6Z0acio L/syJWLhhkuzndJlH+TOAQ2K5V83i9zwPqJcG30VdWECcQfE+RheZzZNq+37SNancYCg cHZ3fsXScLM3BkHNX6XOr5mdEdAZpPfMyUC43Vqd+8aM9ynuPIXCcL6CmNnXyjK8+z4p RW5dsSIoFfHZpJo6jtlCWtMz6IR9uxMPS1tPhyW3nnGGm1QG9ynKgY7fWGQdtrlSCO8q +TH4yifpaFf7ba6yIsrvG0e22sFJLUek1Jff+W7QFoPTDOS0Quxk+S6Sa14BBfgm3M76 o1ag== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kZ1g0nsEtFN18O+j4nN5MOhdJsOjsFVoJ5f5u8W0KCE=; b=HHfkEFIIjg1Dl8vD2suy4ewm8e63dJkYDsNo3p0d/881RASSr5DcvpOvGvy1uahG3Y PDNujhj3fH23hxiwjuaxrjJ4nn4xmmpEVOrMg0DPbXH0li6FFtzJO8q2Rivqcu+ETuLi 3kzNFk04aob1uDiCRAvJpmaPIb1vkJgL9/9uEPQj0NMdoV6Mt2a3Er34WmeWH3EjuqHI bgpMaoAw01B+uWsSuoCsGmsNEXZ4gzjMxdP9BiVmWMfGrOLZFWrlrUAt0bOLBELO8k7u 3pBsYtkkS7HS8D8iSPkDf5OA81qeEBfkgGx9x2dU5QsDVxfyWlBQFNMExHfTJGANCgPt XI6w== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mMI5PSMBEHa2cccG0pU2TNJTZ4vw23wX1WVtgPELNJ6jnDqHmwmu5PIvb56lbnENegflv1MNG6v6cIQQ== X-Received: by 10.55.80.3 with SMTP id e3mr9039467qkb.40.1487803573372; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 14:46:13 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.84.230 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 14:46:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6550638c-a629-bf5e-65e0-672cfd125f73@FreeBSD.org> References: <201702210937.v1L9bY6V093836@repo.freebsd.org> <28a4cf5e-2edd-3e30-9ecd-817f886e9ea3@FreeBSD.org> <20170221144002.GA87822@FreeBSD.org> <20170222070733.GA29010@ymer.vnode.se> <6550638c-a629-bf5e-65e0-672cfd125f73@FreeBSD.org> From: Ngie Cooper Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 14:46:12 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: svn commit: r314036 - head/usr.sbin/bsdinstall/scripts To: Bryan Drewery Cc: Alexey Dokuchaev , Eric Badger , Bartek Rutkowski , "src-committers@freebsd.org" , "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" , "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 22:46:14 -0000 On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote: ... > I concur. > In the original review for adding this I predicted today would come, > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D6826. I still think that it is very > under-designed and under-thought out. > > I personally agree with hardening my system, but I have a number of > issues with this approach: > > 1. It makes *1 installation* method do hardening, while every other > installation method, and *upgrade* methods not do hardening. So someone > upgrading from 11.0 to 12.0 won't get hardening, but someone installing > from bsdinstall for 12.0 fresh will get it. There should not be a > distinction between our installation/upgrade methods like this. > > 2. It ignores that FreeBSD is *generic Operating System* that serves > many workflows. Developers want all of this off, System Administrators > want all of it on, and Desktop users may want a compromise of half of it > to allow various drivers to work (not pointing at any specific sysctl > right now). > > I think what is really needed is a system profile that lets you pick the > workflow you are going to use the system for, and then set some > reasonable defaults from there. We will never all agree on the same > defaults because we all are using the systems differently, but we can > find some compromise if we make Use Cases, such as a System Profile > would entail. > > I too would like to see this backed out. (Piggybacking on this thread) Silly question -- can all of these knobs please default to off and have a global knob, like securelevel..? Fine grained security is great, but it's really cumbersome tweaking everything properly if you don't need a set property. Otherwise we end up with similar complexity to Windows Group Policies (which is good, but also hell to wade through and thus requires MSDNAA training). Thanks, -Ngie