"Kenneth E. Lussier" wrote:
>
> As it is with most of the Linux vulnerabilities. I'd theorize that there
> are *VERY* few security holes in the kernel. Almost every security hole
> in Linux is the result of an additional package. I guess I just don't
> get it. If there's a security hole, there's a security hole. If it's the
> OS, it's the OS. If it's an additional package..... you get the point.
>
> Kenny
As someone who once was responsible for computer security, I'd like to
echo Kenny's point with my second point of security: any site is only
as secure as its weakest link.
If there's a hole, there's a hole, doesn't matter if it's in the
kernel, an application, admistrative error, whatever. So any claims
to "security" based simply on one package are wrong. You can only
evaluate the whole site (yes, well-designed & implemented packages can
make the evaluation easier, but it's still site-based).
For those who are interested, the first rule is: there is no such
thing as security, only managed risk.
jeff
--
jeff smith
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thought for the day: If something has not yet gone wrong then it
would ultimately have been
beneficial for it to go wrong.
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
