> What you say here may lead to confusion. A monolithic kernel doesn't give you > added security toward a modular kernel. To > make the kernel a little bit > more secure I'd use grsecurity (ie to prevent code injection, syscall > hijacking and so on).
the linux kernel IS monolithic no matter if you enable loadable modules or not. if you use modules, it doesn't change the basic structure of the kernel (it is monolithic by design). i think disabling modules on a secure machine is a good idea, but using grsecurity is strongly recommended. ___________________________________________ Gergely Trifonov mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] System Administrator IND - Interactive Net Design http://www.indweb.hu Széchenyi u. 70. H - 3530 Miskolc Hungary Phone: +36 46 505 106 Fax: +36 46 505 107 Mobile: +36 20 5199 114 !Please install IND CA Certificate as TRUSTED CA! https://www.indweb.hu/IND.crt -----Original Message----- From: Filippo Carone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 3:05 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: own kernel vs debian kernel (was: ptrace exploit) * Dale Amon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ha scritto: > I roll my own; nomodules for servers or secure machines, modules for > non-secure workstations. Configure them to the specific minimum requirements > of the particular use and not one option more. What you say here may lead to confusion. A monolithic kernel doesn't give you added security toward a modular kernel. To make the kernel a little bit more secure I'd use grsecurity (ie to prevent code injection, syscall hijacking and so on). Just use modules if you like them. > > Probably best recommendation is to build your own and make kpkg's. > IMHO that's a "Good Thing"(TM). Cheers, fc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
