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 <[email protected]> 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.
+1
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
