On 16 Feb 2003, James Sparenberg wrote: > > It is a great tool... and it does get in the way of some of the work I > have to do. The real point here is that you don't know what it is I'm > trying to do, and why it gets in the way. I'm doing a kind of raw > security testing. Generic, across a multitude of linux distro's and > msec does get in the way of what I do. It is a fact. It is what I do. > I can't have a tool coming in during the test and making changes on > files as it tends to corrupt the data. Other "nice" tools also get > pushed to the side. Such as Tripwire, Snort etc. I need a distro that is > reliable. Suse tends to be too far from the norm RH keeps throwing > errors that are later found to be in the distro itself, and slackware > isn't rpm based (but it does work so it's one of my mules.) Linuxconf is > a nice tool to... and I don't install either *grin*. >
Sure, there are cases when you would not want msec, but most of those (AFAIK ...) are specialist, where the user *should* know how to disable msec while they are doing what they want to do: # service crond stop (will sort out a whole bunch of other things that could interfere ...). But some posts were indicating that they though msec should not be installed by defaul, whereas I think it should. And if there are any issues that affect normal use, people should submit bug reports. I find it very convenient to have one config file I can distribute to machines that sets all the relevant security options I would normally have to spend a lot of time tracking down. Buchan -- |----------------Registered Linux User #182071-----------------| Buchan Milne Mechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work +27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7
