Re: Secure Linux From Scratch

On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 12:57:05PM +0200, Christos Gioran wrote:
> 
> Totally agree on that...which packages of the base LFS system do not qualify? 
> As far as I can tell, lfs-utils, lfs-bootscripts (although pretty trivial) 
> and [place your idea here]...

lfs-bootscripts isn't software, and lfs-utils, IMO, should be dropped
for the official mktemp and a patch to create the tempfile wrapper, but
those are for the lfs-dev team to decide. Until then, we can still test
the code.

> I have tried bfbtester and BOY does it need resources.

Yep. We need volunteers to make any headway. That's why I asked if
someone could write a hint so we can get relevant and comparable
results.

> I was wondering.....secure means optimised, and optimised leads to fast. 

No. Security has nothing to do with optimising. In fact, the opposite is
often true. Many security enhancements will slow down a system. But how
fast does a service like apache realy need to be? Often times, the
performance hit will be negligible in light of the need.

-- 
Archaic

"The power to tax involves the power to destroy;...the power to destroy
may defeat and render useless the power to create...."

- Chief Justice John Marshall, 1819.

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