Re: [Cooker] kernel and systrace

2003-02-09 Thread Michael Scherer
Thank you to reply, but can you add it in TODO or WISHLIST? Or in the list of future possibilities? Can you test it? Warly said that it would be great to have this ( a TODO list shared for the distro ) And he is right. That way, people will see this will be done in the future, or if someone

Re: [Cooker] kernel and systrace

2003-02-09 Thread Gustavo Franco
On Sun, 2003-02-09 at 01:21, Han Boetes wrote: Gustavo Franco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How many possibilities of add systrace[1] in the next release in kernel-secure? It's sounds very good and not impact any system without a policy configuration.The users that are using kernel-secure

Re: [Cooker] kernel and systrace

2003-02-08 Thread Gustavo Franco
On Fri, 2003-02-07 at 20:35, Stefan van der Eijk wrote: [...] For paranoid users/admins like me, grsec with pax and some others options enabled, a system updated and systrace with good policies sounds like 'kiddies' out! :) Maintaining those policies can be very costly. Just wondering what

Re: [Cooker] kernel and systrace

2003-02-08 Thread Stefan van der Eijk
[...] For paranoid users/admins like me, grsec with pax and some others options enabled, a system updated and systrace with good policies sounds like 'kiddies' out! :) Maintaining those policies can be very costly. Just wondering what you are so paranoid about... It's only my own

Re: [Cooker] kernel and systrace

2003-02-08 Thread Chmouel Boudjnah
Gustavo Franco [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But the discussion under this subject is: Why not systrace on the next kernel-secure? Can any developer clarify to me? just because it is not a priority at this time, sorry about that but we got bug to fix before add features. Cheers, Chmouel.

Re: [Cooker] kernel and systrace

2003-02-08 Thread Gustavo Franco
On Sat, 2003-02-08 at 18:09, Chmouel Boudjnah wrote: Gustavo Franco [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But the discussion under this subject is: Why not systrace on the next kernel-secure? Can any developer clarify to me? just because it is not a priority at this time, sorry about that but we

Re: [Cooker] kernel and systrace

2003-02-08 Thread Gustavo Franco
On Sat, 2003-02-08 at 17:30, Stefan van der Eijk wrote: [...] For paranoid users/admins like me, grsec with pax and some others options enabled, a system updated and systrace with good policies sounds like 'kiddies' out! :) Maintaining those policies can be very costly. Just

Re: [Cooker] kernel and systrace

2003-02-08 Thread Chmouel Boudjnah
Gustavo Franco [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thank you to reply, but can you add it in TODO or WISHLIST? Or in the list of future possibilities? yep that would be possible but will not happen before next release. Can you test it? humm not for sure if it's compile it's fine for me :-) (just

Re: [Cooker] kernel and systrace

2003-02-08 Thread Han Boetes
Gustavo Franco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How many possibilities of add systrace[1] in the next release in kernel-secure? It's sounds very good and not impact any system without a policy configuration.The users that are using kernel-secure without expertise won't affected. [1] =

Re: [Cooker] kernel and systrace

2003-02-07 Thread Gustavo Franco
On Thu, 2003-02-06 at 17:52, Stefan van der Eijk wrote: Gustavo Franco wrote: Hi, How many possibilities of add systrace[1] in the next release in kernel-secure? It's sounds very good and not impact any system without a policy configuration.The users that are using kernel-secure without

Re: [Cooker] kernel and systrace

2003-02-07 Thread Stefan van der Eijk
Hi, How many possibilities of add systrace[1] in the next release in kernel-secure? It's sounds very good and not impact any system without a policy configuration.The users that are using kernel-secure without expertise won't affected. [1] =

[Cooker] kernel and systrace

2003-02-06 Thread Gustavo Franco
Hi, How many possibilities of add systrace[1] in the next release in kernel-secure? It's sounds very good and not impact any system without a policy configuration.The users that are using kernel-secure without expertise won't affected. [1] =

Re: [Cooker] kernel and systrace

2003-02-06 Thread Chmouel Boudjnah
Gustavo Franco [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, How many possibilities of add systrace[1] in the next release in kernel-secure? It's sounds very good and not impact any system without a policy configuration.The users that are using kernel-secure without expertise won't affected. [1] =

Re: [Cooker] kernel and systrace

2003-02-06 Thread Gustavo Franco
On Thu, 2003-02-06 at 10:53, Chmouel Boudjnah wrote: Gustavo Franco [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, How many possibilities of add systrace[1] in the next release in kernel-secure? It's sounds very good and not impact any system without a policy configuration.The users that are using

Re: [Cooker] kernel and systrace

2003-02-06 Thread Stefan van der Eijk
Gustavo Franco wrote: Hi, How many possibilities of add systrace[1] in the next release in kernel-secure? It's sounds very good and not impact any system without a policy configuration.The users that are using kernel-secure without expertise won't affected. [1] =