Les Mikesell wrote:
With cars, you are required to select a subset of the available choices
before you make the purchase. With software, especially free software,
there is no reason you can't have all the choices available all the time
and just run what you need. But I don't think anyone needs programs
with known security vulnerabilities so they can all be fixed in the
standard distribution.
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.
But aren't those things all available as standard packages?
They are available in most general-purpose distros, yes. Maximally
secure, no.
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.
Yes, I'd like to see mimedefang packaged with a standard configuration,
but it isn't horrible to set up.
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.
I don't think you need a separate distribution for that - and forcing a
user to pick the packages to install is probably the worst mistake
security-wise since most users have no idea about what they need. What
I've always wanted to see is a configuration management scheme where
anyone could 'publish' a complete list of packages and config changes
they used to set up a machine for certain purposes and anyone else could
clone that exact setup (with local adjustment for hostnames and
addresses, of course), and then track the updates of the master machine
automatically. Then you could simply let an expert take care of your
choices with no extra effort on either side.
RHSL would be targeted at organisations where security is the most
important consideration. Believe that security requirements at national
law enforcement and national intelligence agencies are more stringent
than you or I could possibly want. Penetration of ASIS or ASIO for
Australia, MI5 or MI6 for .uk, CIA for USA has implications for national
security. Penetration of a major bank could have consequences for
national and maybe international economies, just look at the problems a
few maybe-defaulting loans are causing in USA and elsewhere - heck it's
cost me a few thou.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Z1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-- 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:-)
