On 12/19/2014 08:54 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
On 12/19/2014 02:44 PM, 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.
Well that might be the same case in certain things,
Yes, but really only in certain things.
but when it comes to
multi-tenant situations, with MCS Separation. CSP has no answer.
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
