Re: Secure Linux From Scratch

I suggest the SLFS book be the same as the LFS book, and SBLFS be like BLFS, 
as far as layout. With things like, Pax, et_dyn, propolice, libsafe, or 
audited packages, it doesn't make any sence to use one but not the other. 
Everyone has the option to only follow parts of the book they want to anyway. 
(S)BLFS are components that not everyone will use, like networking. I also 
think its a good idea to keep networking out of SLFS since its a massive 
subject and should be seperated for better detail.

>From what I understand et_dyn is broken in gcc-3.3. So without adding more 
patches, we could downgrade to gcc-3.2, or upgrade to gcc-3.4 with a 
backport/patch.. and that needs glibc-2.3.3. Just something to consider, but 
we'll need to do one of these to take advantage of Pax. 

I need to update the propolice hint and I'll start auditing coreutils, and try 
to come up with a security/auditing policy draft. This presents another 
problem. The coreutils team doesn't want to hear about bugs in v5.0, they 
expect me to use their cvs version, so if fixes are found/made, we will 
either have to use more patches, or the cvs version, at least untill a stable 
slfs book version is made.

I'm not on the lfs-dev list, is this discussion going to move there?

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