On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 2:27 PM Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Di, 15.02.22 19:05, Stefan Schröder (ste...@tokonoma.de) wrote:
>
> > Situation:
> >
> > Many packages in a distribution ship with a default configuration
> > that is not considered 'secure'.
>
> Do they? What dos "secure" mean? If
On 16/02/2022 17:11, Stefan Schröder wrote:
I must say, I am very sure that the primar focus should always be on
locking things down as well as we can for*everyone* and as
*default*.
Yes, that'd be nice, but I don't think it's realistic. Having an opt-in via the
proposed mechanism, it would
> Lennart Poettering hat am 16.02.2022 13:27
> geschrieben:
> Do they? What dos "secure" mean? If there's a security vulnerability,
> maybe talk to the distro about that? They should be interested...
I am not talking about vulnerabilities here. All the major distros maintain
hardening guides.
On Di, 15.02.22 19:05, Stefan Schröder (ste...@tokonoma.de) wrote:
> Situation:
>
> Many packages in a distribution ship with a default configuration
> that is not considered 'secure'.
Do they? What dos "secure" mean? If there's a security vulnerability,
maybe talk to the distro about that? They
Situation:
Many packages in a distribution ship with a default configuration that is not
considered 'secure'.
Hardening guidelines are available for all major distributions. Each is a
little different.
Many configuration suggestions are common-sense among security-conscious
administrators,
