On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:43:27PM +0200, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: > It is interesting. Whenever I someone is telling of big uptime, the arguiment > is: > [cut] > > 2. Security issues > > But a kernel can stay very, verry long time. On machines, where you do not > change hard or software (i.e. new filesystems like btrfs), an old kernel will > work perfectly. > > Security issues, which affect modules, but not the kernel itself, may not cause > the need of a new kernel. When people lik me and others on this list, are > using a very small kernel, with minimalistic modules, and the security issues > affect modules, which are not built nor installed, then there is no need, to > install a new kernel. Out of curiosity, where is the evidence for this FUD that people are coming up with that the kernel core CANNOT have a security issue? Presumably, the argument is that if I do "make allno" and install that kernel, then there is NO CONCEIVABLE exploit in that code? > > So it is wrong to conclude and to say: Hey, your uptime is high, this > concludes to an unsecure host due to an old kernel. To say so, is a big > mistake! > > Just to clear things. :) > > Anyway, let's have fun at hacking. >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature