[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: SELinux removed from desktop cd spin?



jam zoidtechnologies com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 08:57:56PM +0100, Valent Turkovic wrote:
Hi,
I believe that SELinux is a great linux server security hardening tool
but that has little use in desktop linux usage and it confuses
ordinary desktop users.
If it hasn't been discussed before I would like to propose that on
desktop cd spin SELinux is not installed by default, of course after
discussion and approval from you (fedora devels).


Cheers,
Valent


-1

selinux should most definately *remain* in the desktop spin and *all* of the
fedora spins because it drastically increases the security of the box in
question.

hopefully all the replies to this thread agree with me.

<rant>

I wish I could say that I'm sorry to crush your hopes, but I'm really not. Despite what I've said in the past, I have the utmost respect for selinux and security. But what I don't have any respect for is people of your mind, who myopically just see "increased security". People who view security that way IMO contribute to some of the worst cancers against humanity.

This is just standard rhetoric that I shouldn't be wasting my time repeating here, but security is ALWAYS a balance and a tradeoff against other *values*, and never an absolute.

When selinux is the right tool for the job, bringing a greater benefit to the system at hand than the costs involved with using it, then great. But to claim that it should remain in "*all* of the fedora spins" is IMO utterly wrong, and a narrow vision of what fedora could be useful for. There are times and applications where selinux is JUST NOT WORTH IT. I'm not saying it's the majority of the time, or even >1%. But if fedora is (to be) used in tens of millions of systems, 1% of that is actually a *significant* number.

If only I could waterboard the fuck out of all the loyal bushies that see "national security" as the *only* value to be measured when making a decision.

There are times when you let innocent people die and get hurt by terrorists, because the values sacrificed in making a decision that could and does stop the terrorists, are MORE IMPORTANT than a narrow short term view of "national security".

I sincerely hope that what I've said will cause you to think a little more before uttering "I hope everyone agrees with me that more security is always better" again. But I welcome you to crush my hopes as I've just crushed yours.

</rant>

-dmc


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]