Hello ~Stack~,
~Stack~ i.am.st...@gmail.com wrote:
We are using it for specific services but I don't see why it would be any
different setting up pidgin or opera. I have only deployed SELinux to a
single Debian system and that was under Lenny. I don't recall it being
problematic or anything.
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Ralf Mardorf
ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net wrote:
On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 15:30 -0400, Tom H wrote:
Yes, but it's part of the paranoia ;) and comes withs tons of threads,
on Ubuntu Precise:
spinymouse@precise:~$ ps -eLf|grep console-kit-daemon|wc -l
66
It's an
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Ralf Mardorf
ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net wrote:
On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 15:41 -0400, Tom H wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Ralf Mardorf
ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net wrote:
On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 18:45 +0200, Claudius Hubig wrote:
AppArmor doesn’t add a
Hello,
I am running Testing/Sid amd64 with Multi-Arch enabled (i. e. Acrobat
Reader and Skype from i386) on a single-user machine and here’s what
I want to achieve:
- Programs that process data ‘from the internet’ are only allowed to
access the files they strictly need to access, plus a
AFAIK openSUSE and Ubuntu by default do ship with AppArmor.
Dunno why our Linux installs get spammed with all that crap, such as
AppArmor, ConsoleKit etc..
Reminds me to remove AppArmor from my latest Ubuntu Studio.
In cases of paranoia I recommend to consult a shrink instead of
installing
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:14:03 +0200, Claudius Hubig wrote:
I am running Testing/Sid amd64 with Multi-Arch enabled (i. e. Acrobat
Reader and Skype from i386) on a single-user machine and here’s what I
want to achieve:
- Programs that process data ‘from the internet’ are only allowed to
Hahaha :D
women are more careful then men are.
Perhaps Camaleón (as I) does know Suse ;). And IIRC Suse first ships
with AppAmor.
Sorry, who exactly plans a conspiracy? Regarding to the answer AppArmor
might be helpful, if not, it just spam shutdown messages with crap, as
it does for my
On Sun 17 Jun 2012 at 18:00:25 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
[Snip]
Joe and Sam (most wanted spammers on this list) never ever will have
impact to your Linux ;). Forget AppArmor! Read about ConsoleKit and
other security helpers, we already run much to much threads, when
running Linux.
that, and that’s what SELinux, AppArmor etc. are
for, in my opinion: separate processes, users and files as much as
possible.
Complete virtual machines for each of the applications (Opera,
Iceweasel, Pidgin, Skype) would
a) probably break my machine’s RAM requirements
b) be rather unusable
c) make it much
and Sam (most wanted spammers on this list) never ever will have
impact to your Linux ;).
So what? I don’t plan to use AppArmor/SELinux as a spam filter, I
don’t think you read my original email.
Forget AppArmor! Read about ConsoleKit and
other security helpers, we already run much to much
On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 17:38 +0100, Brian wrote:
On Sun 17 Jun 2012 at 18:00:25 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
[Snip]
Joe and Sam (most wanted spammers on this list) never ever will have
impact to your Linux ;). Forget AppArmor! Read about ConsoleKit and
other security helpers, we already
On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 18:45 +0200, Claudius Hubig wrote:
AppArmor doesn’t add a single thread to a running Linux system.
So it's a voodoo-ghost and doesn't need resources?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
PS:
Regarding to ConsoleKit, POSIX threads?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1339953435.2074.65.camel@precise
it make sense to switch from a running AppArmor system to a SELinux
system?
I'd say no again :-)
As I already mentioned, both approaches look too complex to my taste.
Anyway, if what you are telling me is that should you have to go with
AppArmor or SELinux (yes or yes), of course I'd choose
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Ralf Mardorf
ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net wrote:
On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 17:38 +0100, Brian wrote:
On Sun 17 Jun 2012 at 18:00:25 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Joe and Sam (most wanted spammers on this list) never ever will have
impact to your Linux ;). Forget
Hello Ralf,
Ralf Mardorf ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net wrote:
On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 18:45 +0200, Claudius Hubig wrote:
AppArmor doesn’t add a single thread to a running Linux system.
So it's a voodoo-ghost and doesn't need resources?
It runs directly in the kernel, where any access control
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Ralf Mardorf
ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net wrote:
On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 18:45 +0200, Claudius Hubig wrote:
AppArmor doesn’t add a single thread to a running Linux system.
So it's a voodoo-ghost and doesn't need resources?
If you think that it's using a thread,
On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 15:30 -0400, Tom H wrote:
Yes, but it's part of the paranoia ;) and comes withs tons of threads,
on Ubuntu Precise:
spinymouse@precise:~$ ps -eLf|grep console-kit-daemon|wc -l
66
It's an old bug/feature:
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17720
On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 15:41 -0400, Tom H wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Ralf Mardorf
ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net wrote:
On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 18:45 +0200, Claudius Hubig wrote:
AppArmor doesn’t add a single thread to a running Linux system.
So it's a voodoo-ghost and doesn't
Hello Claudius,
I don't have a ton of experience with SELinux on Debian. However, a
specific work project requires a deployment of Red Hat systems all with
SELinux and I have been very impressed with how easy it is to setup and
administer. I have been impressed for a while now, actually. We are
20 matches
Mail list logo
