Hi Russell,
El lun, 03-01-2005 a las 23:53 +1100, Russell Coker escribió:
> On Saturday 06 November 2004 02:57, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > debian doesn't GIVE users that choice [remember the adamantix
> > bun-fight, anyone?] and instead settles for about the l
On Saturday 06 November 2004 02:57, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> debian doesn't GIVE users that choice [remember the adamantix
> bun-fight, anyone?] and instead settles for about the lowest possible
> common denominator - no consideration to modern security AT ALL!
On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 15:57 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> response 3: _is_ it the job of debian developers to dictate the minimum
> acceptable security level?
It is absolutely Debian's job to provide a baseline level of security by
default. Debian doesn't let you install a syste
(...)
> response 3: _is_ it the job of debian developers to dictate the minimum
> acceptable security level?
yes, it is. But we have to weight in the needs of our users. We want, after
all, our operating system to be used in a large set of environments and
some of those might break when enabli
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:57:52 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
[...]
> response 3: _is_ it the job of debian developers to dictate the minimum
> acceptable security level?
It is the job of the kernel team to maintain the kernel. That includes
ensuring the kernel runs correctly and quic
On Nov 05, Stephen Smalley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Obviously, I'd prefer the default to be selinux=1, but as a temporary
> measure to getting SELinux compiled into the Debian kernel at all, I
> think it is reasonable to make the boot-time default selinux=0 in their
> kernel, as SuSE did with
On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 10:11, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 10:28 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > i would agree with stephen that it should be compiled in,
> > default options "selinux=no".
>
> I don't believe Stephen said that. He said that the performance hit in
>
On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 10:11:01AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 10:28 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 11:06:06PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 13:15 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > >
> > > > def
On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 10:28 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 11:06:06PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 13:15 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> >
> > > default: no.
> >
> > Why not on by default,
>
> i would agree with steph
On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 23:06, Colin Walters wrote:
> Why don't we just run say EROS (http://www.eros-
> os.org/) instead? A: Because what makes SELinux interesting is that it
> can run all of our legacy software. By not shipping it on everywhere,
> we're not tapping that ability.
Some of us might
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 11:06:06PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 13:15 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>
> > default: no.
>
> Why not on by default,
i would agree with stephen that it should be compiled in,
default options "selinux=no".
that gives people th
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 00:40:41 -0500, Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj, if you're referring to our conversation earlier on IRC, I
> said that I have no personal interest in selinux, but I had no
> problems with it being included as long as it's not a significant
> performance hit.
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 23:06:06 -0500, Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 13:15 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> default: no.
> Why not on by default, with a targeted policy, for everyone?
> SELinux's flexibility allows one to easily turn it off for specifi
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:15:44 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 01:02:35AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 21:15:38 -0500, Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 19:21 +, Dhruv Gami wrote:
>> >> Personally
On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 13:15 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> default: no.
Why not on by default, with a targeted policy, for everyone? SELinux's
flexibility allows one to easily turn it off for specific services.
There's a lot of value in preventing a compromised or misconfigured
sy
- Forwarded message from Stephen Smalley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivery-date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 16:37:30 +
X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
Subject: Re: Updated SELinux Release
From: Stephen Smalley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 01:02:35AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 21:15:38 -0500, Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 19:21 +, Dhruv Gami wrote:
> >> Personally, i would prefer to have those two tarballs available. I
> >> know most people
17 matches
Mail list logo
