| 1 |
On 20/04/2010 00:43, Mansour Moufid wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Ed W<lists@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Can we please avoid annoying the few developers we have working on hardened. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I didn't mean to come off as critiquing anyone. I am a fan of the |
| 6 |
> Gentoo Hardened and Security projects. I was only stating my |
| 7 |
> impressions. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
>> I would also disagree that there are some big vulnerabilities just because |
| 10 |
>> your "stable" kernel is older. Personally I prefer to stay a little more up |
| 11 |
>> to date, but I think there are a good may Redhat and Centos servers running |
| 12 |
>> much older kernels than that... |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Except that they don't use vanilla kernels and invest considerable |
| 15 |
resources into the process of continually backporting fixes into their |
| 16 |
respective patchsets, both security related and otherwise. RHEL has a |
| 17 |
7-year life cycle during which introducing any potentially breaking |
| 18 |
changes in the kernel (or changes that may have an adverse impact on |
| 19 |
userspace) is simply out of the question. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I disagree. That is a dangerous assertion. It is no secret that most |
| 23 |
> vulnerabilities in Linux are fixed silently, without ever being |
| 24 |
> reported as such. Hence why older kernels are more vulnerable. As for |
| 25 |
> RedHat and CentOS: |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Indeed. I believe that we'll be seeing a GLSA in the not-too-distant |
| 28 |
future which settles this argument beyond any doubt. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Cheers, |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
--Kerin |
Archives