| 1 |
On Wed, 2004-03-17 at 12:46, Michael Atighetchi wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 08:20:31PM -0500, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 3 |
> > hardened-dev-sources-2.6 is available for "testing" |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> <snip> |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> > Oh wait one more thing.. If you really care about security you probably |
| 9 |
> > should stick with 2.4.x |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Could you explain more why you think 2.6 is "less" secure thatn 2.4 ? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I'm not saying that 2.6.x is less secure in anyway. 2.6.x has been out |
| 15 |
all of what a few months? And the security patches even less time. So |
| 16 |
without proper security regression tests done for 2.6.x yet I'll stick |
| 17 |
with recommending that it not be used for production environments yet. |
| 18 |
2.4.x on the other hand has been audited by many sets of eyes where |
| 19 |
2.6.x has probably been reviewed by a few. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Auditing and regression testing is welcome. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-peace |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Michael |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> > -peace |
| 30 |
> > |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
| 33 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives