Re: TEST

["jeff@3SOURCE" <jeff@3sourcetech.com>]

Actually, why not just jump over to OpenBSD instead of having to port things?
It seems like having to re-invent the wheel.

The way I see things, Linux appears to be way fragmented - what with
LIDS, Bastille, kerneli etc and all these patches, just to ride on top of the
kernel in order to get it to do the things we want... (of which would include
security - one of OpenBSD's most famous strength)

What ~are~ the project objectives of Linux anyway? I haven't seen any
(but perhaps I am wrong - correct me if you will). Good examples of
project statements would be (of course) like that of OpenBSD's and
NetBSD's (available at their respective .org's) Don't you think that perhaps
it is time we should start creating such objectives for Linux? (or perhaps
Linux is meant to be "free" in that sense, allowing each distribution
to make its own decision as to project goals (but this has unfortunately 
resulted
IMO too many distributions)???)

I would have hoped that the guys would have done something to Linux,
considering the news quite some time ago. Unfortunately, as the traffic
on this list has shown, nothing much seems to be in the way (or at least
not according to the traffic indications..)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- This Application has reported a 'Not My Fault' in module KRNL.EXE in 
line 0688:4EEE ---
--- 
---
--- Press any key to do 
nothing...                                                      ---
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

peace to all *nix's
- jeff

==============

At 03:20 PM Monday 7/8/00, you wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Fire Dragon wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 01:15:38AM +0000, James Stevenson wrote:
> >
> > I know the current kernel is incapable of handling encryption (yes I know
> > about kerneli.org and the patches there...) but I'm kind of wondering how
> > much trouble it would be to actually add such a feature.
>
>have no idea, but if you can encrypt filesystems, why then not a swapfile
>(yes file), improving on swapfile performance would be greatly
>appreciapted by people anyway. You could also look into creating an
>encrypted swap as you are doing now, by patching your kernel first with
>kerneli.org patches.
>
> > Then again without encrypted file systems this is a bit pointless...
> >
>
>Those are at kerneli.org, but don't expect them to be added to the
>mainstream kernels just yet. Apart from coding style and so on (which
>could be a reason), Linus won't let it happen just yet, but eventually it
>will, so just go help them and it will be in the mainstream kernels soon
>enough.
>
> > ttylz
>
>Hope this helps,
>         Lennie.
>
>
>Kernel-audit:  discussion list for security and the linux kernel
>Archive:       http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernel-audit/


Kernel-audit:  discussion list for security and the linux kernel
Archive:       http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernel-audit/