> I have come across some article regarding the matter. I am mentioning the > link of the article to satisfy your curiocity. Cool...thanks. That article mentions one thing in particular that is the foundation of Linux and the open source license and that this open source. Open Source is still one of the debateable issues of security. Is Open Source more secure than closed-source? > 2. What are the expectation regarding the "Secured Linux" (including kernel > as well as tools and utilities, without which the secured Linux would not be > useful in practical scenario..)?? I mean to ask, is there any clear set of > expectation regarding the secured Linux ? In short, what should be "Ideal > Secure Linux"?? A recent thread on the list talked about "Ideal Secure Linux" but more of 'secure by default". Probably the general conclusion was a perspective of what you are using linux for and where but most importantly the administrators ability to enable secure settings. A user at home may not need the security of the NSA's SELINUX patch or Trinux's secure distribution. A comprehensive list would be difficult to come up with as opinions would differ widely. Same for "any clear set of expectation[s]' for a secure distribution. These are questions that various distributions attempt to address. -- duane -- GnuPG Public Key: http://sukkha.homeip.net/pgp.html -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 $GSS/OS d s+:+ a- C+++ UL++++ P+ L+++ E- W++ N* o+ K- w O- M- V- PS+ PE--Y+ PGP++ t 5 R- !tv b+++ DI-- D G e+++ h+ r-- y+ z-- -----END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- http://www.geekcode.com/geek.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe email security-discuss-request@linuxsecurity.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject of the message.
