| |||||||||||||
Tightening security: Time to prioritize it!!Tightening security: Time to prioritize it!!Posted Jun 29, 2012 19:14 UTC (Fri) by utoddl (subscriber, #1232)In reply to: Tightening security: Time to prioritize it!! by spender Parent article: Tightening security: not for the impatient Okay, I have no familiarity with grsecurity, but that their entire site seems to be php based made me wince a little.
(Log in to post comments)
Tightening security: Time to prioritize it!! Posted Jun 30, 2012 1:31 UTC (Sat) by spender (subscriber, #23067) [Link]
I suppose you prefer the OpenBSD camp and their "security through complete lack of features"? What kind of security system would it be if it couldn't withstand running the same software nearly everyone else does?
Regardless, it seems to be working out a lot better for us than whatever kernel.org has been running ;)
It's clear you have no familiarity with grsecurity: having your head in the sand for a decade speaks volumes about your security knowledge.
Not really sure why people like yourself feel the need to reply publicly just to expose your own ignorance to the world.
-Brad
Tightening security: Time to prioritize it!! Posted Jul 1, 2012 11:52 UTC (Sun) by roblucid (subscriber, #48964) [Link]
grsecurity has been offered by some distro's and not others, so the original point made in comment was reasonable; it does not have universal acceptance. There are often competing approaches and implementations of ideas, some developers work better with the LKML community than others so tend to have code accepted where others have failed.
The last sentence was not necessary, a personal comment detracting from the technical point point.
Tightening security: Time to prioritize it!! Posted Jul 1, 2012 12:40 UTC (Sun) by spender (subscriber, #23067) [Link]
You should look again at the comment I was actually replying to (it seems you paired it up with a different one). If you think *that* idiotic one-liner was "reasonable", more power to you.
-Brad
Tightening security: Time to prioritize it!! Posted Jul 1, 2012 14:35 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Granted, the one-liner was a bit misleading; the same comment could have been made for many other things and be equally meaningless. Just for fun:I have no familiarity with github, but that their entire site seems to be Rails-based made me wince a little.(The last one made me wince too, but hey.) Anyway I think you (Brad Spender) can do better than insult someone in public. This kind of derision tells more about you than about the original poster.
Tightening security: Time to prioritize it!! Posted Jul 11, 2012 21:21 UTC (Wed) by BenHutchings (subscriber, #37955) [Link]
spender doesn't want distributions to package grsecurity, as its security improvements might be compromised by other patches they apply. I am quite happy to oblige him in this regard.
Tightening security: Time to prioritize it!! Posted Jul 12, 2012 12:26 UTC (Thu) by spender (subscriber, #23067) [Link]
Ben seems to be referring to my only public comment on the Debian list regarding packaging grsecurity. For the others reading, here's my comment in its entirety:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2012/01/msg01165.html
Anyone is free to do what they want, of course. I just don't recommend the use of such kernels, as over the years I've noticed several things:
1) Our development is very active, yet any 3rd-party packaging has always lagged (often quite badly). In fact just yesterday I had someone on the forums waste my time trying to get help compiling his "grsecurity" kernel that turned out to be a 2 year old Debian source of it.
I don't think any of the above is unreasonable. BTW, instead of making snide remarks, might your time be better served backporting some more missing security fixes to 3.2? ;)
-Brad
Tightening security: Time to prioritize it!! Posted Jul 13, 2012 1:36 UTC (Fri) by BenHutchings (subscriber, #37955) [Link] In fact just yesterday I had someone on the forums waste my time trying to get help compiling his "grsecurity" kernel that turned out to be a 2 year old Debian source of it. Not an official Debian package, of course. BTW, instead of making snide remarks, might your time be better served backporting some more missing security fixes to 3.2? ;) My remark was intended more as a joke that it's very easy to satisfy people who want me (or rather us) not to work on something. Less funny when it has to be explained, I suppose. As for backporting security fixes, I try, but surely you consider me incompetent to do so?
Tightening security: Time to prioritize it!! Posted Jul 13, 2012 2:45 UTC (Fri) by spender (subscriber, #23067) [Link]
In that case, sorry -- I shouldn't have assumed. FWIW you do a good job backporting with much attention to detail. My comments were more about merging of security features as opposed to fixes for a particular bug. Features generally require ongoing maintenance and re-evaluation.
-Brad
|
|||||||||||||