Hi!
As this discussion has not much to do with the rc19 release, would
you please change the subject ?
Like "OpenVPN and SELinux" or "Securing the OpenVPN process" ...
Thanks,
David
> -Original Message-
> From: Karl O. Pinc [mailto:k...@meme.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 6:17
On 07/28/2009 11:47:57 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> Well,
> I do not understand you guys.
>
> If you think SELinux is so great, why do you need chroot?
> It is like you put some money in safe, and then put the safe into
> another safe, it never ends... Why only two safe, let's put another
> safe...
>
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 07:47 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> Well,
> I do not understand you guys.
> If you think SELinux is so great, why do you need chroot?
> It is like you put some money in safe, and then put the safe into
> another safe, it never ends... Why only two safe, let's put another
> saf
On 29/07/09 03:49, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> On 07/28/2009 04:22:09 PM, Sebastien Raveau wrote:
>
>
>> If I understand you correctly, that is, if you are suggesting that
>> OpenVPN should automatically apply a SELinux context if setcon() is
>> available... I'll have to disagree with you. Not that I r
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 6:47 AM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> Well,
> I do not understand you guys.
>
> If you think SELinux is so great, why do you need chroot?
> It is like you put some money in safe, and then put the safe into
> another safe, it never ends... Why only two safe, let's put another
> safe
On 29/07/09 06:47, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> Well,
> I do not understand you guys.
>
> If you think SELinux is so great, why do you need chroot?
> It is like you put some money in safe, and then put the safe into
> another safe, it never ends... Why only two safe, let's put another
> safe...
> I know
Well,
I do not understand you guys.
If you think SELinux is so great, why do you need chroot?
It is like you put some money in safe, and then put the safe into
another safe, it never ends... Why only two safe, let's put another
safe...
I know that this is the approach many of security advisors use
On 07/28/2009 04:22:09 PM, Sebastien Raveau wrote:
> If I understand you correctly, that is, if you are suggesting that
> OpenVPN should automatically apply a SELinux context if setcon() is
> available... I'll have to disagree with you. Not that I reject the
> idea of enforcing security measures
