[Fedora] Seeing input on Securing the Linux system from intrusions and attacks.

[John Summerfield]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> John Summerfield wrote:
> 
>>>> My point, for those who seem to have missed it, is that on the 
>>>> others security is considered a top goal and highlighted as such on 
>>>> the home page. I similarly excluded FreeBSD because it's not 
>>>> highlighted as a top requirement. I also excluded Debian - freeness 
>>>> drives the Debian project, usability drives Ubuntu.
>>>
>>> Agreed, but you have enough experience to know that good intentions 
>>> and strict attention to narrow goals don't produce the best results 
>>> every 
>>
>> I didn't say anything about narrow goals, did I? 
> 
> When you emphasize one, it usually comes at the expense of others.  Or 
> it's just meaningless hype.
> 
>> Security is important to all of those projects, but if you don't 
>> highlight the key goals of your OS project, you aren't selling the 
>> project very well, and you will probably miss those goals.
> 
> I tend to ignore marketing hype.
I didn't say anything about marketing hype either. If you have a 
project, you want users and you may want people to help you. You have 
about one para to get people's attention.

Marketing hype takes longer than that. Remember, "hype" is short for 
"hyperbole" and asserts exaggeration.
> 
>> I'm pretty happy with the security in RHEL's clones, but that still is 
>> not the first amongst its goals. The driver in RHEL is the Enterprise. 
>> Of course, security is important, but Red Hat Secure Linux would be a 
>> very different product, wouldn't you think?
> 
> I'm not sure how it could be different and still be useful.  Maybe they 
> would disable your ability to turn off SELinux and firewalling.  And 
> wouldn't the existence of a separate secure product imply that the stock 
> one has known security flaws?  As things are, I assume that 
Why? Does the fact that GM sells big cars, small cars, cheap cars & 
expensive cars mean there's anrthing wrong with any of them? I see it as 
a recognition that different folk have different requirements.

> vulnerabilities are always fixed in updates as they are discovered.
> 
Might be more like this (from distrowatch):
EnGarde Secure Linux is a server-oriented open source operating system 
that provides services like web, DNS and email simply and securely while 
eliminating the need for time-consuming "hardening" by the user. EnGarde 
offers integrated intrusion detection, advanced kernel and network 
security features, and graphical auditing and reporting - all controlled 
through Guardian Digital WebTool, a simplified browser-based management 
system.
 From its website:
Unprecedented Security. Unrivaled Manageability.

EnGarde is the first truly secure, open source Internet operating platform.
Simplified Web-based management and enterprise scalability combine to
deliver unprecedented security and a feature-rich Internet application
environment.

The first release I saw incorporated LIDS (before selinux was usable). I 
might have used it, but for the fact it used a 2.2 kernel.


I would expect RHSL to have more emphasis on keeping the bastards out 
and detecting their efforts to subvert the security measures, and maybe 
some self-repair. Running a secure server as a virtual server implies 
you _can_ check it with a trusted Linux - the host. Or another guest. 
Installing a service would imply all appropriate support packages - 
sendmail+spamassassin+mimedefang, and guidance on getting them up and 
running securely.

A default install would have the minimum required to boot and install 
other stuff, a GUI would be optional on a server (if provided). selinux 
would be enforcing, and maybe not able to be turned off without a 
reboot. Filesystems might be encrypted by default.


-- 

Cheers
John

-- spambait
1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu  Z1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

You cannot reply off-list:-)