Security testing: need for a security policy, and a security-critical package process

[Matthias Clasen]

On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 18:31 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:

> Otherwise we open ourselves up to a less-secure-by-default posture in an 
> average install.
> 
> We've been in that position in the past and it is not a favorable place to 
> be.
> 

We should just avoid to sink tons of QA resources in verifying that a
theoretical 'unprivileged user' can do nothing, when that role is not
something anybody would want to use anyway (because it can do nothing)
and is not the role that most users will actually end up with in a
typical desktop install.