On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 12:20:43PM +0100, Peter Busser wrote: > Hi! > > > > Yes. But I didn't get the impression so far that there are any Debian people > > > who view it like a benefit. I am still hopeful that I will be proven wrong > > > about this though. > > I would use it for sure... I daresay there are plenty of companies out > > there that would be interested too. I'm slowly pooling ideas to assemble > > for a debian-enterprise sub-project proposal, and security goals is > > clearly one area we need to clearly define. I can see PAX fitting into > > this very well. > > I have no doubt you will have users, in fact, plenty of users. > > Ok, that is nice to hear. Currently I'm way to busy with RSBAC development for > Adamantix. When that is more or less ready, I think I have time to create a > kernel patch package if you (or someone else) can do the Debian paperwork. Just so we move forward, I have packaged today a kernel-patch-package which seems to apply as expected with 'make-kpackage' based on the changes you have introduced to the kernel_2.4.21_2.4.21-5 package developed by Herbert Xu. I've sent the ITP (just in case somebody wants to comment or pre-test it) and will upload it soo to an upload queue. I guess that the rsbac userspace would need to be included in Debian too in order for this patch to be useful for Debian users at all, am I correct? I'm going to send also the paxtest package you developed in order for people to test PaX (and exec-shield's) functionality and decide for themselves. I will first write a manpage for it (as mandated per policy) though. Regards Javi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature