What I see Bastille doing is educating the security newbies to become more informed about basic security hardening on the system. I totally understand everyone's points as experienced Linux users but consider the end user w/o the many years of knowledge you all have. Many people get on the Bastille mailing list requesting support for the particular distors they operate including Fedora and Red Hat. On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:47:04 -0500, Michael Favia <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Marius Andreiana wrote: > > >On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 17:51 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > > >>>able on the distribution install media at this time. > >>> > >>> > >>I'd be interested to see what changes bastille recommends, and rather > >>just make those the default if they make sense. > >> > >> > >Perfectly right. There shouldn't be any Bastille for Fedora/Red Hat :) > > > > > The problems arise when usability suffers at the hands of security. > While the added security is justifiable in some cases other times it is > a model of inefficiency. If were aren't careful we'll end up with a > "Rube Goldberg" imitation of a distribution > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg). The goal is a peaceful > balance between the two. > > -- > Michael Favia michael at insitesinc dot com > Insites Incorporated http://michael.insitesinc.com > > > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list >
