Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 13:20:38 +0200 From: "Andreas Alderud" <aaldv97@student.vxu.se> To: <security@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Security and FreeBSD, my overall perspective Message-ID: <002401c02b99$a07a8ab0$6400a8c0@XGod>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I think it would be wise to have three ports of the ``same´´ package.
My idea is to have lets say -SECURE, -STABLE - and CURRENT (the same could
be done with FreeBSD itself).
The good thing about this would be that if a port is labeled -SECURE it's
not necessary the most recent -STABLE version, obviously, and the -SECURE
port could the be marked with a N-value for security level.
The real advantage of this would be if the BSDs would have a unified ports
system, as proposed by Chris Coleman, and incorperate the ideas of Jordans
paper on the future package system.
Because many developers find security auditing a boring task, me included,
this task could then be handled, in most cases, by the OpenBSD or similar
team since they like to do that kind of stuff. - This would only happen if
there was a unified ports system.
Doing this would also help people like me who hate to be forced to either
port an old version of a software or run the latest port that most often is
alpha or beta(typical opensource style :-( ), because I could either
run -STABLE or -SECURE depending on my level of paranoia. And people who
like to stay on the bleeding edge con do that with -CURRENT.
But then most of the problems would go away if FreeBSD got MAC etc, fortanly
the TrustedBSD team is working on that.
/Kind regards,
David A. Alderud
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?002401c02b99$a07a8ab0$6400a8c0>