How's forever work for you? ;->
Absolutely FINE thank you! When your WizWonder package is housebroken, let me try it if I'm interested.
Until then, a (stubbornly) broken distro will persuade me to try something else. That's why I left Windows, I guess, if you prognosticate correctly, it will be why I leave RedHat/CentOS.
btw this has nothing to do with Firewalls at all. I bought a firewall (router) and use it.
If I had to upgrade firewall firmware versions, and the new versions broke running applications, I'd consider the new firewall firmware BROKEN.
As is, I don't mind SELinux, because I can disable it at installation time.
I will continue to do so until it is no longer broken.
Brian Brunner brian.t.brunner@gai-tronics.com (610)796-5838
thebs413@earthlink.net 11/14/05 11:24AM >>>
"Brian T. Brunner" brian.t.brunner@gai-tronics.com wrote:
How do we define Ready? I gave that answer in the text you replied to: when it doesn't break things.
How's forever work for you? ;->
NPTL, ANSI C++, GLibC 2 and many other adoptions Red Hat has made still break things. Heck, we're not even looking at recent things -- from 4K stacks to ACLs. ;->
You ask about applications not being SELinux aware. The proper things for SELinux to do in those cases is advise the operator that SELinux can't manage this app because it isn't SELinux aware, and that whatever security holes that application embodies are outside the scope of SELinux.
I think that's what the advisement is. You can start disabling some aspects of SELinux -- such as with permissive mode.
This is consistent with SELinux being a *service* to the operator, not a bully-boss to the operator and the authors/maintainers of every package Joe Operator might have on his system.
Actually, SELinux _is_ a "bully-boss" to the operator. It will _always_ be a "bully-boss" to the operator.
No, it doesn't.
I think _many_ people other than myself have seen _many_ viewpoints on this issue. Why many people seem to think that there must be no less than an absolutism on SELinux until it accomplishes no less than the _impossible_ is beyond me.
It's about ownership of control. Is this RedHats' system to break if they want to compel me to do things their way?
Yes. And you have these options.. 1. Learn it and see if it fits 2. Put it into another mode (e.g., permissive) 3. Disable it 4. Look to another distro choice
Red Hat has its reasons, and it's not going to change those reasons. Common Criteria is a major driver right now because of Linux can achive higher CC levels than Windows, while still running applications (which Windows virtually can_not_ do), then Microsoft will lose federal installations en masse.
If not, then distributing SELinux with a default of 'on' when it breaks running systems is distributing a broken software package.
SELinux will _always_ break running systems. Just like a "deny all outgoing" firewall will too.
Translate: Everybody is out of step except my boy! (and those who happen to be in step with him).
Exactly! SELinux by default is here to stay if you choose Red Hat.
I say Broken, and Disabled for Good.
Then that's your choice. Red Hat has made their default, but you still have choice.
The proper things for SELinux to do in cases of non-compliant apps is to advise the operator that SELinux can't manage this app because it isn't SELinux aware, and that whatever security holes that application embodies are outside the scope of SELinux. That's a *service*.
You seem to fail to understand what SELinux does. ;->
Breaking said applications is a broken application.
Then add outgoing firewalls to the same list. Oh, you just turn an outgoing firewall off? Well then, that's your solution. ;->
I don't know if I could make a better analogy.
-- Bryan
P.S. SELinux is _not_ a service. It is an _enforcement_ in the kernel. There are hundreds of rules. Applications either learn to make SELinux considerations, help write rules, or a combination of both. SELinux is basically the biggest change to Linux in a long, long time -- breaking the 30+ year legacy UNIX model.