On 09/09/2017 10:25 AM, intrigeri wrote:
> Hi Laurent & everyone else who's listening!
>
> Laurent Bigonville:
>> Le 03/09/17 à 13:01, intrigeri a écrit :
>>> Laurent Bigonville:
IMVHO, in regard to the recent proposal of enabling apparmor in debian
by default, this needs to be addressed
Hi Laurent & everyone else who's listening!
Laurent Bigonville:
> Le 03/09/17 à 13:01, intrigeri a écrit :
>> Laurent Bigonville:
>>> IMVHO, in regard to the recent proposal of enabling apparmor in debian
>>> by default, this needs to be addressed first.
>> I'm genuinely curious why this should be
Le 03/09/17 à 13:01, intrigeri a écrit :
Hi Laurent!
Hello,
Laurent Bigonville:
IMVHO, in regard to the recent proposal of enabling apparmor in debian
by default, this needs to be addressed first.
I'm genuinely curious why this should be a blocker for Debian: this is
not obvious to me as a
Hi Laurent!
Laurent Bigonville:
> IMVHO, in regard to the recent proposal of enabling apparmor in debian
> by default, this needs to be addressed first.
I'm genuinely curious why this should be a blocker for Debian: this is
not obvious to me as a number of distros could enable AppArmor by
default
This is upstream bug report:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/audit/+bug/1117804
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 16:42:55 +0200 Laurent Bigonville wrote:
IMVHO, in regard to the recent proposal of enabling apparmor in debian
by default, this needs to be addressed first.
Yes this is very important, although we have aa-logprof to be used as auditing
tool, but I agree that not seeing App
Source: linux
Version: 4.12.6-1
Severity: normal
Hi,
Currently the code in the kernel is not using the expected audit event
ids (it's using the one allocated to SELinux, 1400 to 1499) when it's
logging its messages (denials,...).
This has been discussed on the linux-audit back to 2014 and again
7 matches
Mail list logo