I agree 100% I don't need it to make a system secure. >and it appears still that your confidence that you can secure systems >without it gets in the way of any efforts to learn how it may benefit >you. Craig White wrote: >On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 11:18 +0000, Peter Farrow wrote: > > >>We've been here before by the way >> >>http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2005-May/006303.html >> >> >>Peter Farrow wrote: >> >> >> >>>Thats because its entirely possible to make a system secure without >>>Selinux, it was only born in Centos from Version 4. >>> >>>While I would never recommend turning off a firewall, I would >>>recommend turning off Selinux: a firewall doesn't stop stuff on the >>>box working properly as it ships, Selinux does. >>> >>>For example anything that would stop squid running properly out of the >>>box (as Selinux does) is of limited value, in this instance its not >>>required, it gets in the way, it IS easily possible to have a secure >>>system without Selinux, whereas that is doubtful without a firewall. >>>Chalk and cheese springs to mind. >>> >>>If Selinux is the "baby" in your metaphor, then the best thing to with >>>it is hold it under the water until it stops moving.... >>> >>>For those of us who know how to configure secure systems (and I'm not >>>suggesting you don't Tony by any stretch) Selinux is additionaly bloat >>>I (we) don't really need. It just slows the system down... >>> >>>I''ve never needed it...... >>> >>> >>> >---- >and it appears still that your confidence that you can secure systems >without it gets in the way of any efforts to learn how it may benefit >you. > >Thanks for the chatter...I know how to turn it off. I am trying to learn >to live with the beast. > >Craig > > > >