Re: ifupdown writes to /etc... a bug?
On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 10:16:39AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Russell Coker writes:
> > My suggestion to make a minor change to the file naming scheme under
> > /usr/share to make things easier for SE Linux was shot down even though
> > it would take very little effort to implement. This ro-root idea takes
> > considerably more work to implement and I think that it provides
> > considerably less benefit.
>
> R/o root also provides a degree of protection against buggy programs and
> admin errors. I prefer to minimize the number of r/w partitions.
RO root on CDROM means you need to create a new CDROM for every upgrade.
On the positive side, this means reverting back to an older version
in case anything is broken with the new version is easy.
Another potential benifit is that it makes it easier to have all Linux
routers for instance running a consistant set of Packages, you just
check that the CDROM is the same version (although there might be issues
here with variable configuration that still need to be resolved).
No need to inspect every individual router if a security hole is
discovered in one, just update the CDROM and distribute as required by
the organisation's security policy.
On the negative side, this means fiddling around with new network
connections, etc, could be a pain in the neck, as you have to create and
test a new CDROM each time.
As to which security tool you use, it really depends on what you are
trying to secure yourself against. A RO filesystem does nothing to
prevent looking at private files and/or sniffing the network interfaces
for passwords, you need something like SE-Linux for that. However, there
are some features a RO source can have (like those mentioned above) that
SE-Linux doesn't provide.
--
Brian May <bam@debian.org>
Reply to: