[Dev] [consensus][due: 2016-08-10] increasing security in Parabola, servers

coadde coadde at riseup.net
Mon Aug 1 23:36:29 GMT 2016

On 08/01/2016 08:33 PM, André Silva wrote:
> On 08/01/2016 08:15 PM, Luke wrote:
>> On 08/01/2016 07:04 PM, fauno wrote:
>>> André Silva <emulatorman at riseup.net> writes:
>>>> [ Unknown signature status ]
>>>> On 08/01/2016 07:23 PM, André Silva wrote:
>>>>>>> * Testing against all type of attacks to check our security settings is ok.
>>>>>> +1. We should have someone audit the server for any vulnerabilities.
>>>>> +1, i suggest use linux-libre-audit for it.
>>>> In this case, since it is a server, i could create a modified version of
>>>> linux-libre-lts with AUDIT support called linux-libre-lts-audit, what do
>>>> you think guys?
>>> what about grsec?
>> grsec would probably be better for the server, but what does the audit
>> kernel do? I meant literally audit it, as in run nmap and other tools to
>> scan for vulnerabilities...
> AUDIT support is useful for debugging, however it is disabled in default
> kernels for performance reasons.
> btw, grsec would probable be better for the server too. i agree about it.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/attachments/20160801/4b1e5e52/attachment.sig>

More information about the Dev mailing list