Re: Secure Linux From Scratch

Archaic wrote:

>Yes, but local can quickly become remote if you have telnetd or sshd
>running. I assume many of the sections in the book would be skipped by
>some, just like many skip the KDE section of BLFS. It's still a matter
>of choice built around a core framework. That is what makes the entire
>LFS concept so beautiful.
>  
>
Well said :-)

>Of course, at times there will be lag, but the linking of the SLFS
>version to the LFS version doesn't mean packages have to stay the same.
>Taking your kernel example. The SLFS-5 book would assume a base LFS-5
>install. Therefore, the kernel section would say get 2.4.23 and apply
>the relavant patches, etc, because if assuming an LFS version, we _know_
>the reader has a vulnerable kernel. All changes of this sort could be
>numbered by patch-level increments in order to maintain the numbering
>cohesion to the LFS book. Example: LFS-5.0 and SLFS-5.0 are released. A
>kern bug is found. SLFS fixes it and increments to SLFS-5.0.1, 5.0.2,
>etc. Eventually becoming 5.1 when LFS does. Also, all attempts would be
>made (just like in BLFS) to keep CVS synced with changes to LFS-CVS.
>BLFS had to keep OpenOffice instructions synced to what LFS-CVS was
>doing).
>  
>
That is exactly how we are planning to do it for BLFS. Makes it a bit 
easier to maintain.

>If it's to get off the
>ground, we need more developers.
>
I think there are many other folks who would be interested, maybe after 
the lfs-dev post there would be more volunteers.

I would suggest that a small group come with a POA before posting the 
RFC. That would make it easier for people to join in on the discussion.

-- 
Tushar Teredesai
   http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
   http://www.geocities.com/tushar/


-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-security
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page