, 2005-02-02
Recent events have shown that the way security in the Linux kernel is handled is broken, and it needs to be fixed right now.
Expand all |
Post comment
Linux Kernel Security is Lacking
2005-02-02
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Linux Kernel Security is Lacking
2005-02-04
Anonymous (5 replies)
Anonymous (5 replies)
"The numbers" and (deliberate?) failure to undestand what linux is
2005-02-07
RedHat not Linux User. (1 replies)
RedHat not Linux User. (1 replies)
Re: The "numbers" and (deliberate?) failure to undestand what linux is
2005-02-07
Jason V. Miller (Author) (1 replies)
Jason V. Miller (Author) (1 replies)
Linux Kernel Security is Lacking
2005-02-03
Todd Knarr (1 replies)
Todd Knarr (1 replies)
Linux Kernel Security is Lacking
2005-02-04
Jason V. Miller (Author) (1 replies)
Jason V. Miller (Author) (1 replies)
Linux Kernel Security is Lacking
2005-02-05
Todd Knarr (1 replies)
Todd Knarr (1 replies)
Linux Kernel Security is Lacking
2005-02-09
Joe Borsits (1 replies)
Joe Borsits (1 replies)
Linux Kernel Security is Lacking
2005-02-03
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
I eagerly await...
2005-02-03
Anonymous (5 replies)
Anonymous (5 replies)
So, what now about kernel security?
2005-02-03
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
flamer ! is not having an hidden mailing = we do'n't care about security
2005-02-04
Alban Browaeys (1 replies)
Alban Browaeys (1 replies)
flamer ! is not having an hidden mailing = we do'n't care about security
2005-02-04
Jason V. Miller (Author)
Jason V. Miller (Author)

2. If you get your kernel from a vendor, contact the vendor. RH has a contact list, as does - I believe - the other vendors. Many vendors modify the kernel with their own adaptations. Not all of the changes has made it back to the development kernel - in some cases, these mods are NOT compatable with other development and were not accepted.
3. When all else fails there has always been the Linux Kernel mailing list.
Right now, I believe the discussion was on setting up a common mailing list for security problems, but don't expect immediate fixes if the problem is in a vendor specific modification.
You only mention two security project - neither has been accepted into the kernel (mostly because they don't cooperate with the developers by producing bite sized changes).
There are several others:
SELinux - Security Enhanced Linux, by the NSA,
OWL
the LSM project - which is getting modularized security capability into the kernel.
RSBAC - a role based security project
and more.
The lack of review of projects implies that you are a bit unfamilar with the existing Linux security controls.
The developers have NEVER been lax in security support.
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/296/30322#30322