[opensuse-factory] Need to click twice on shutdown to power-off TW
Hello, I've posted same question if I'm not wrong time ago but didn't get answers. I'm using TW and I've installed four DE: Gnome, Cinnamon and XFCE IceWM. It happens that when I want to power-off the machine I need to repeat the steps twice: click on exit, power-off. This is needed with all the above DE. Would like to know if somebody else has faced same behavior and if it is possible to correct it in the way of just clicking exit, power-off once to shutdown the machine. Thanks. P.S. S/MIME testing -- TThheerree''ss aann EEcchhoo iinn hheerree.
On Friday, 29 September 2017 14:05:00 CDT Marco Calistri wrote:
P.S. S/MIME testing
Upon opening your message in Kmail, I got a popup asking if I trusted some certificate authority. Of course I said no. I could presume the popup was opened by Kmail in response to your signature, but if that is the case, it would be nice if Kmail said so. Does anyone see a problem here? The avarage user would see a stranger wandering around on their desktop. What should I do? -- Tom Hardy <rhardy702@gmail.com> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday, 29 September 2017 14:05:00 CDT Marco Calistri wrote:
P.S. S/MIME testing
Upon opening your message in Kmail, I got a popup asking if I trusted some certificate authority. Of course I said no.
I could presume the popup was opened by Kmail in response to your signature, but if that is the case, it would be nice if Kmail said so.
Does anyone see a problem here? The avarage user would see a stranger wandering around on their desktop. What should I do? He did an "P.S. S/MIME testing" (as he quoted at the end of message) When an S/MIME message arrives, you may or may not want to trust the issuing authority (which is one of the weaknesses of s/mime vs gpg, you need to trust an authority. But then, it is a very well known way to encrypt in business. In
In data sabato 30 settembre 2017 00:41:04 CEST, Tom Hardy ha scritto: this case it was commodo. Do you use kleopatra? It may be the programm that issued the demand. And no, I do not think it is something strange, the average user should be able to understand the value of such a question. Maybe a better definition of which programm opens this would be better. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Saturday, 30 September 2017 00:08:32 CDT stakanov wrote:
He did an "P.S. S/MIME testing" (as he quoted at the end of message) When an S/MIME message arrives, you may or may not want to trust the issuing authority (which is one of the weaknesses of s/mime vs gpg, you need to trust an authority. But then, it is a very well known way to encrypt in business. In this case it was commodo. Do you use kleopatra? It may be the programm that issued the demand. And no, I do not think it is something strange, the average user should be able to understand the value of such a question. Maybe a better definition of which programm opens this would be better.
I've got Kgpg running (maybe I should change that), but I thought it was Kmail that issued the request. That's one of the problems--the issuing program and the reason for the request isn't identified--and I feel uncomfortable extending trust without knowing the party and dotting all the i's. I'm just carrying that lack of trust forward to certificate authorities. I should say I don't have knowlege of gpg usage reduced to muscle memory, I just use it once in a while. There is another, more common circumstance where Kmail (If it's Kmail) makes ambiguous requests for trust, when it tries to make a secure connection through a captive portal with a certificate. There, the answer is clearly no. But what is the average user to do? Just trust any party to come along without a clue what is going on, in an attempt to make things work? I think the dialog should at least identify who is making the request. It could be Kmail, or it could be Firefox, or it could be NetworkManager.... -- Tom Hardy <rhardy702@gmail.com> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
In data sabato 30 settembre 2017 09:06:10 CEST, Tom Hardy ha scritto:
On Saturday, 30 September 2017 00:08:32 CDT stakanov wrote:
He did an "P.S. S/MIME testing" (as he quoted at the end of message) When an S/MIME message arrives, you may or may not want to trust the issuing authority (which is one of the weaknesses of s/mime vs gpg, you need to trust an authority. But then, it is a very well known way to encrypt in business. In this case it was commodo. Do you use kleopatra? It may be the programm that issued the demand. And no, I do not think it is something strange, the average user should be able to understand the value of such a question. Maybe a better definition of which programm opens this would be better.
I've got Kgpg running (maybe I should change that), but I thought it was Kmail that issued the request. That's one of the problems--the issuing program and the reason for the request isn't identified--and I feel uncomfortable extending trust without knowing the party and dotting all the i's. I'm just carrying that lack of trust forward to certificate authorities. I should say I don't have knowlege of gpg usage reduced to muscle memory, I just use it once in a while.
There is another, more common circumstance where Kmail (If it's Kmail) makes ambiguous requests for trust, when it tries to make a secure connection through a captive portal with a certificate. There, the answer is clearly no.
But what is the average user to do? Just trust any party to come along without a clue what is going on, in an attempt to make things work?
I think the dialog should at least identify who is making the request. It could be Kmail, or it could be Firefox, or it could be NetworkManager....
I agree that the issuing programm should be clearly understandable. For the problem itself, you may go to kmail, configuration, security (on in Kontact: settings, kmail-configuration, security. There check the settings for certificates in the last tag "s/mime". If you deactivate the automatic import of certificates, you should avoid the issue. (Although I think you know all that, in this case please have patience and forgive me the redundancy of this answer.). -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 2017-09-30 09:06, Tom Hardy wrote:
On Saturday, 30 September 2017 00:08:32 CDT stakanov wrote:
He did an "P.S. S/MIME testing" (as he quoted at the end of message) When an S/MIME message arrives, you may or may not want to trust the issuing authority (which is one of the weaknesses of s/mime vs gpg, you need to trust an authority. But then, it is a very well known way to encrypt in business. In this case it was commodo. Do you use kleopatra? It may be the programm that issued the demand. And no, I do not think it is something strange, the average user should be able to understand the value of such a question. Maybe a better definition of which programm opens this would be better.
I've got Kgpg running (maybe I should change that), but I thought it was Kmail that issued the request. That's one of the problems--the issuing program and the reason for the request isn't identified--and I feel uncomfortable extending trust without knowing the party and dotting all the i's. I'm just carrying that lack of trust forward to certificate authorities. I should say I don't have knowlege of gpg usage reduced to muscle memory, I just use it once in a while.
It is not a GPG issue. PKCS works differently.
There is another, more common circumstance where Kmail (If it's Kmail) makes ambiguous requests for trust, when it tries to make a secure connection through a captive portal with a certificate. There, the answer is clearly no.
But what is the average user to do? Just trust any party to come along without a clue what is going on, in an attempt to make things work?
The average user has the responsibility to know what a certificate authority is. And when the question arises to trust or not to trust a new authority, it is up to the user to decide. >:-) It is part of the mandatory training you do to get your license to use computers :-P
I think the dialog should at least identify who is making the request. It could be Kmail, or it could be Firefox, or it could be NetworkManager....
It doesn't matter, because the answer will apply to all software installed in your computer now and in the future. The question is simple: Do you accept Comodo as a certificate authority? If you are in doubt, stop and google it. Of course, the dialog should have as a valid answer "I don't know". -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 42.2 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)
Il 29/09/2017 19:41, Tom Hardy ha scritto:
On Friday, 29 September 2017 14:05:00 CDT Marco Calistri wrote:
P.S. S/MIME testing
Upon opening your message in Kmail, I got a popup asking if I trusted some certificate authority. Of course I said no.
I could presume the popup was opened by Kmail in response to your signature, but if that is the case, it would be nice if Kmail said so.
Does anyone see a problem here? The avarage user would see a stranger wandering around on their desktop. What should I do?
That POP-UP has been triggered just by my digital signed e-mail message whose issuer is: COMODO RSA Client Authentication and Secure Email CA Don't worry! Regards, -- Marco Calistri Linux version : openSUSE Tumbleweed 20170925 Kernel: 4.13.4-1.g4dec972-default - Cinnamon 3.4.6 N�����r��y隊Z)z{.���r�+�맲��r��z�^�ˬz��N�(�֜��^� ޭ隊Z)z{.���r�+��0�����Ǩ�
On Friday, 29 September 2017 14:05:00 CDT Marco Calistri wrote:
P.S. S/MIME testing
It works (When I do the things necessary to make it work ;)). -- Tom Hardy <rhardy702@gmail.com> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
participants (4)
-
Carlos E. R. -
Marco Calistri -
stakanov -
Tom Hardy