On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, George Danchev wrote: > > Why not? It's a package. We modify it as we need to in order to provide > > functionality and satisfy the needs of our users. I'm perfectly willing > > to bet that more of our users are interested in a functional ipsec stack > > than are interested in the grsecurity patch. > > I think this is not a gamble story to make a bet. I as an debian user am > sorry > to hear that from you. This is simply unfair. Do in mind that there is no > sane way to understand if users prefer ipsec or grsec to be included by > default in kernel-source-<version>. Both ipsec (freeswan) and grsec kernel > patches are not security fixes, they do not fix existing security holes, they > are security enhancements. They both deserve to be included as > kernel-patch-<feature> packages... Well... as 2.6 is coming out really soon, ipsec is in a lot better position than grsec. Also, you will _have_ to port grsec to 2.6 (or abandon it), and 2.6 will have ipsec in the upstream sources. The only difference lies in needing to do the porting work a bit sooner.
1KB /-----------------------\ Shh, be vewy, vewy quiet, | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I'm hunting wuntime ewwows! \-----------------------/ Segmentation fault (core dumped)
