> Why disabling SELinux is important? Because both SELinux and CSP are doing the same thing, except CSP does it better! I wonder how Symantec backs that claim up. On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Currently Symantec requires SELinux be disabled, claiming there is > conflicts in the kernel modules. > > http://www.symantec.com/connect/forums/does-scsp-agent-support-selinux > > As the customer wants to take advantage of certain SELinux features > like sVirt for VMs and Docker Containers, this conflict is coming to a head. > > Is anyone familiar with whether or not this is a real conflict or just > something assumed by Symantec? > > The customer like Symantec's ability to do intrusion detection and > remote logging and configuration of CSB. > > Bottom line the customer wants both. > _______________________________________________ > Selinux mailing list > Selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe, send email to Selinux-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx. > To get help, send an email containing "help" to Selinux-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx. _______________________________________________ Selinux mailing list Selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe, send email to Selinux-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx. To get help, send an email containing "help" to Selinux-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
