Qrux wrote: > Does anyone know of any actual vulnerabilities in LFS-proper (either > 7.0 or 7.1)? > > I'm not asking about hypothetical concerns, and for the purpose of > this discussion, I'm not asking about BLFS. I'm not asking if the > books make any claim about security, either. In fact, I don't think > they make any claims about security--which is precisely what makes > the "LFS-is-not-secure-enough-for-production-use" warnings even more > surprising. > > I'm asking if LFS-proper--built by following the book's directions > exactly and correctly--has known vulnerabilities, not whether LFS > responds to vulnerabilities or why there isn't more man-power on the > security issues.
If we knew/know of any specific vulnerabilities, we'd address them. There are always ways of erecting fences around something to make it more secure. For instance, we don't address selinux. It's not updated as much as LFS, but you can take a look at HLFS. It has some security related patches that can be installed. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
