On 03/27/2011 03:42 PM, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 06:55:34PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>> You're not wrong, but this can be restructured to come better in line
>> with the rest of the hardened profiles. I have to do a careful analysis
>> of the stacking and see if we ca
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 06:55:34PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> You're not wrong, but this can be restructured to come better in line
> with the rest of the hardened profiles. I have to do a careful analysis
> of the stacking and see if we can get something similar out of simpler
> stackings
On 03/18/2011 11:43 AM, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 07:41:37AM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>> Hi Sven,
>>
>> Did you identify what the wierdness was. I'd like to eventually clean
>> up the profiles. Rather than
> [...]
>> I'd like the selinux to conform to the hardened/lin
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 07:41:37AM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> Hi Sven,
>
> Did you identify what the wierdness was. I'd like to eventually clean
> up the profiles. Rather than
[...]
> I'd like the selinux to conform to the hardened/linux/amd64, ie change
> 10-16 to just
>
> selinux/v
Hi Sven,
Did you identify what the wierdness was. I'd like to eventually clean
up the profiles. Rather than
[1] default/linux/amd64/10.0
[2] default/linux/amd64/10.0/desktop
[3] default/linux/amd64/10.0/desktop/gnome
[4] default/linux/amd64/10.0/desktop/kde
[5] default/linux
Hi all,
I had no issues turing a no-multilib (hardened/linux/amd64/no-multilib)
system into a SELinux enabled one. I did not however change profiles, as the
feedback I've received earlier indicates that the profiles might have
some... weird things happening ;-)
So I just made local overrides in /
