Re: SEUL: "Core" proof-of-concept

[Neilen Marais <brick@cryogen.com>]

Hi George

>As I think 2.0.32 has proven very stable and offers considerable
>security
>protection for the end user, I intend to REMOVE the following packages
>from the tentative SEUL-base that I am constructing:
>
>kernel-doc-2.0.29
>kernel-doc-2.0.30
>kernel-headers-2.0.29
>kernel-headers-2.0.30
>kernel-image-2.0.29
>kernel-image-2.0.30
>kernel-source-2.0.29
>kernel-source-2.0.30
>pcmcia-modules-2.0.29
>pcmcia-modules-2.0.30
>
>Any objections?

Sounds fine.  2.0.29 was very stable... Why they still include 2.0.30 I
don't know, as its the only 2.0.x kernel thats ever made me doubt
linux's stability (but when I moved back to 2.0.29 the faith was
restored :)

Anyway, I won't be surprised if in the future 2.0.34 becomes the
base in the end, because were it not for the inode security bug in
2.0.33 it might have been the last of the 2.0.x's.  (If you find my
description of the bug somewhat lacking check www.slashdot.org's back
articles for a link to a better description :)

>George Bonser 
>If NT is the answer, you didn't understand the question. (NOTE: Stolen
>sig)
>http://www.debian.org
>Debian/GNU Linux ... the maintainable operating system.

Cheers
Neilen

----------------------------------
E-Mail: Neilen Marais <brick@cryogen.com>
Date: 18-Jan-98
Time: 22:55:12

This message was sent by XFMail
----------------------------------