Les Bell wrote:
>
> "Ross S. W. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>
> I agree whole heartily. It would go a long way though if Redhat
> provided independent certification of their products under these
> compliance banners.
> <<
>
> RHEL 5 is Common Criteria certified against the Controlled
"Ross S. W. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
I agree whole heartily. It would go a long way though if Redhat
provided independent certification of their products under these
compliance banners.
<<
RHEL 5 is Common Criteria certified against the Controlled Access
Protection Profile (CAPP), L
nate wrote:
>
> Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
>
> > Then there is the whole convincing these firms and agencies that
> > since CentOS is a duplication of Redhat's system it is therefore
> > certified by the laws of transitivity, but who knows if they will
> > buy it...
>
> Well I wouldn't be surprise
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> Then there is the whole convincing these firms and agencies that
> since CentOS is a duplication of Redhat's system it is therefore
> certified by the laws of transitivity, but who knows if they will
> buy it...
Well I wouldn't be surprised if a agency/certification thi
Tony Placilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sr. UNIX Systems Administrator
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
>>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:01 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ross S. W.
Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>
>> Bob Boilard wrote
nate wrote:
> Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
>
> > The agencies don't know what security backports vendor XYZ
> > has implemented and frankly they don't care. All they have
> > is a list of minimum version numbers that software must be
> > at in order for it to be deemed "compliant".
>
> So check the a
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> The agencies don't know what security backports vendor XYZ
> has implemented and frankly they don't care. All they have
> is a list of minimum version numbers that software must be
> at in order for it to be deemed "compliant".
So check the actual version number of the
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
Bob Boilard wrote:
Hello all,
I love CentOS, but I am seriously regretting selecting
Centos 4.4 for my
production hosting servers. The current situation with
CentOS 4.4 and being
stuck at Apache 2.0.52 is a huge problem because of the new
re
Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
> Bob Boilard wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I love CentOS, but I am seriously regretting selecting
> Centos 4.4 for my
> > production hosting servers. The current situation with
> CentOS 4.4 and being
> > stuck at Apache 2.0.52 is a huge problem because of the new
> req
Bob Boilard wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I love CentOS, but I am seriously regretting selecting Centos 4.4 for my
> production hosting servers. The current situation with CentOS 4.4 and being
> stuck at Apache 2.0.52 is a huge problem because of the new requirements for
> the Credit Card industry PCI sc
Johnny Hughes wrote:
Bob Boilard wrote:
Hello all,
I love CentOS, but I am seriously regretting selecting Centos 4.4 for my
production hosting servers. The current situation with CentOS 4.4 and
being
stuck at Apache 2.0.52 is a huge problem because of the new
requirements for
the Credit Car
Bob Boilard wrote:
Hello all,
I love CentOS, but I am seriously regretting selecting Centos 4.4 for my
production hosting servers. The current situation with CentOS 4.4 and being
stuck at Apache 2.0.52 is a huge problem because of the new requirements for
the Credit Card industry PCI scan. Apa
I love CentOS, but I am seriously regretting selecting Centos 4.4 for my
production hosting servers. The current situation with CentOS 4.4 and being
stuck at Apache 2.0.52 is a huge problem because of the new requirements for
the Credit Card industry PCI scan. Apache 2.0.52 does not pass PCI
compl
13 matches
Mail list logo
