Search: Home Bugtraq Vulnerabilities Mailing Lists Jobs Tools Beta Programs
Standardizing on Security
Hal Flynn, 2004-01-14

The Linux standards group publishes 565 pages of data describing a standards-compliant Linux package. So why aren't any of them about security?

Comments Mode:
Standardizing on Security 2004-01-15
Anonymous
-1 Troll.

I liked the old Unix columnist much better because, he knew what he was talking about!

What would you add to LSB to make it more secure? Most of LSB is describing directory structures and locations of scripts and programs. It's meant so I can go from one LSB compliant Linux to another and know where everything is. That I'm going to go to /var/log and all system logs will be there. Security does not belong in LSB. There are linux security projects. TrinityOS for example. LSB wouldn't have authority to say to use SSH, but it would have the authority to say where and how SSH it installed. Please inform us all as to exactly what you'd add to LSB to make it more secure?

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/207/24399#24399
Standardizing on Security 2004-01-16
Anonymous
Bring in the zealots. 2004-01-16
Anonymous (1 replies)
Bring in the zealots. 2004-01-19
Anonymous
Fedora Core release 2 2004-01-16
Jared Robinson
Standardizing on Security 2004-01-16
Anonymous
Standardizing on Security 2004-01-17
Anonymous (1 replies)
Standardizing on Security 2004-01-19
Anonymous
Hal would be right... 2004-01-19
Anonymous
Standard Argument 2004-01-19
Anonymous
Standardizing on Security 2004-01-21
blacklight
Standardizing on Security 2004-01-21
Anonymous







 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2009, SecurityFocus