On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 10:47:58 UTC+11, Connor Page wrote:
> Sorry Drew, you asked what needs to be installed to make another dom0, not
> the bare minimum that is required.
I'm sorry that I was not more specific when I said "needs". It can be taken
multiple ways, I should have been more
Sorry Drew, you asked what needs to be installed to make another dom0, not the
bare minimum that is required. Every Qubes specific package provides a list of
prerequisites and version conflicts. For instance,
Name: qubes-core-dom0
Version:%{version}
Release:1%{dist}
On Friday, 6 January 2017 19:59:43 UTC+11, Connor Page wrote:
> why wouldn't you consult the list of actually installed packages?
> https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-installer-qubes-os/blob/master/conf/comps-qubes.xml
Can you, from that, tell me what are REQUIRED for Qubes-OS to be fully
why wouldn't you consult the list of actually installed packages?
https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-installer-qubes-os/blob/master/conf/comps-qubes.xml
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"qubes-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
The real question here I think is..
What needs to be installed in an O/S to create a new Dom0?
I've asked this before, and none answers the question.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"qubes-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
The LUKS issue was all about getting a root shell as opposed to being
able to defeat LUKS or get the keys or decrypt the data. I know this was
a bit misreported in the press.
A bigger issue is if /boot is not encrypted. And with modern GRUB there
is no need for it not to be. Someone could then
I have seen much more systemd hates than proper arguments against systemd. But
if systemd is really wrong, this kind of debate does not contribute for
rejecting it.
>From security perspective in context of dom0, systemd is a process that
>interacts with local processes and maybe with few other
When you don't update, you will eventually have software full of known security
bugs. Known security bugs (if they aren't properly managed, like analyzing
their impact and mitigating them) are arguably worse than unknown security bugs
(ceteris paribus), because they are much cheaper to exploit.
On Thursday, 5 January 2017 11:38:52 UTC+11, raah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 7:37:42 PM UTC-5, raah...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 12:08:54 PM UTC-5, Jeremy Rand wrote:
> > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > > Hash: SHA512
> > >
> > >
On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 7:37:42 PM UTC-5, raah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 12:08:54 PM UTC-5, Jeremy Rand wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA512
> >
> > pixel fairy:
> > > On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 at 6:32:41 PM UTC-7, ears...@gmail.com
>
On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 12:08:54 PM UTC-5, Jeremy Rand wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> pixel fairy:
> > On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 at 6:32:41 PM UTC-7, ears...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >> We all know Fedora is a big name, but is it a good choice for a
> >>
On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 12:01:57 AM UTC-5, Vít Šesták wrote:
> While I agree Debian is a fair choice in terms of security, I disagree with
> your reasoning. The “encryption bypass” is rather a minor vulnerability (i.e.
> if attacker has all prerequisities to abuse it, she probably
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 02:19:20 UTC+11, Ronald Duncan wrote:
> This thread just sprung to life again.
>
> I had a quick look at
>
> https://www.qubes-os.org/doc/templates/
>
> And along with Debian which is installed by default both
>
> Arch and
> Ubuntu
>
> Are available...
But not
This thread just sprung to life again.
I had a quick look at
https://www.qubes-os.org/doc/templates/
And along with Debian which is installed by default both
Arch and
Ubuntu
Are available...
My personal preference in Ubuntu because it generally just works, and Arch
because it has the
Jeremy: That's all well and good (though without being specific, the criticism
doesn't really impress me, unless the unstated assumption is that 'stable'
software doesn't get security fixes), but (esp. in the case of Tor) you can
just as easily turn that around: precisely because of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
pixel fairy:
> On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 at 6:32:41 PM UTC-7, ears...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> We all know Fedora is a big name, but is it a good choice for a
>> Security Driven OS like QubeOS to be based around? What do others
>> here think?
>
>
I agree, redhat seems to always be finding the most crucial vulnerabilities in
linux. Also imo, fedora is the most secure big linux distro by default. (a
firewall on by default, selinux etc
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Security_Features?rd=Security/Features) So we
know they take security
On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 at 6:32:41 PM UTC-7, ears...@gmail.com wrote:
> We all know Fedora is a big name, but is it a good choice for a Security
> Driven OS like QubeOS to be based around?
> What do others here think?
There are a lot of packages creating a bigger attack surface. but, bigger
On 12/26/2016 08:30 PM, Drew White wrote:
On Thursday, 3 October 2013 08:52:22 UTC+10, Mailbe User wrote:
I think the hardest problem here is people putting aside their distro war
differences.
Here I see Joanna mention this; 'it should have the latest Desktop Environment
and Xorg drivers
19 matches
Mail list logo
