On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 22:48 +0100, Peter Farrow wrote: > oops forgot the link, if I was using SELinux I could have blaming it for > removing it.... > > http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/info/faq.cfm#I2 > > > > > Peter Farrow wrote: > > see points for 12 and 13 to substantiate my previous post.... > > > > so its not secure and its not trusted and its not going to be B1 and > > C2 evaluated and point 16 is a killer, > > > > point 17 is icing on the cake, (I think SElinux is about 6 feet under > > by now) > > > > so bring on the flames, your gonna have to do really well to justify > > it now.... (lol) > > > > And all these points are from the authors of SELinux, so save yourself > > the trouble and disable it... > > > > :-P > > hmmm SELinux is in CentOS-4 and the upcoming CentOS-5 ... Novell has AppArmor (a similar technology). SELinux is different ... but it is certainly more secure than not running it. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060918/fb3fcf27/attachment-0005.sig>