| 1 |
On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 11:33, Calum wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 23 August 2004 16:27, you wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > Are there any plans to bring all this into the 2.6 kernels, or is the |
| 4 |
> > > move towards SELinux? |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Try hardened-dev-sources - they contain GRSecurity and PaX, and are |
| 7 |
> > well-maintained. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Thanks for that - not sure why I didn't notice that. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> But as a general feeling, do people feel that SELinux will become the |
| 13 |
> hardening method of choice? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Absolutely NOT. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
people are often confused about this topic. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Problem is selinux is gaining alot of publicity right now and people |
| 20 |
think it's a replacement for grsec which it is not. We see this on the |
| 21 |
gentoo-hardened mailing lists all the time. People tend to think. |
| 22 |
"Hey whats this selinux thing I see people talking about it." |
| 23 |
"It must be good, the NSA has something to do with it" |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
In reality it seems to be harder than heck to maintain and people |
| 26 |
usually need help (why there is so much buzz), and only a limited number |
| 27 |
of people seem to be able to write policy for it. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> I.e. If I have to make a choice and commit now, |
| 30 |
> shall I stick with GRSec, or start looking at SE? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
There is no feature that I'm aware of that selinux offers that grsec |
| 33 |
does not handle. But it's always comes down to a matter of choice |
| 34 |
(flavors if you will). |
| 35 |
What works the best for you and your systems. (apples or oranges) |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
good luck. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> C |
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
| 44 |
Gentoo (hardened,security,infrastructure,embedded,toolchain) Developer |
Archives