On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Brandon Vincent
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 5:17 PM, ToddAndMargo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Before you shake the finger at me, all of the below were "no security"
>> installations,
>
> The finger will be shook regardless. Eventually a "no security"
> installation will be connected to a different network than originally
> intended.

Heh. Before getting too much into security models of old software, and
how they don't play well with others, Do take a look at the old CUPS
interface rant by Eric Raymond, "The Luxury of Ignorance". And I've
certainly had environments where the root user's password was
*locked*, and only sudo or controlled SSH key access to the root
account was permitted. So there could be issues there, too.

>> Twice on FC21 machines and once on a OSx machine I have been caught not
>> being able to use CUPS (http://127.0.0.1:631) because the "administration"
>> function required the root's (OSx was the user's) password. And, they had it
>> and all others set to blank password. Cups must have a password, so I
>> couldn't use the administration functions.
>>
>> Is there a way around this besides assigning a password (which will
>> not endear me to the customer[s])?
>
> I commented out the lines starting with "Require" in cupsd.conf and
> was able to achieve what I believe you wanted.
>
> Brandon Vincent

Good catch!