On 12/19/2014 11:44 AM, eric gisse wrote: >> 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. Emphatic assertion. It's a very popular form of argument in the security realm. > > 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. > _______________________________________________ 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.
