How secure is LFS?

Wil Cooley wcooley at nakedape.cc
Tue Feb 26 11:51:32 PST 2002


Also Sprach Richard Clark <rclark at cunning.com> on Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 11:13:20AM PST
> I went with LFS for security, because I know exactly what I installed, I
> know exactly what is on my system to be exploited.
> 
> I have Apache, Bind, Postfix, SSH, and QPopper.  
> These are the only daemons running, and as long as I watch for security
> reports, and keep them up to date, then I feel I am about as secure as I
> can get.
> 
> I also follow the guidelines from TrinityOS
> http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~dranch/LINUX/ and Bastile Linux
> http://www.bastille-linux.org/ to help secure the system in general.
> 
> Now, that being said - Security is only as good as I make it.. If I am
> lax, don't change the defaults, don't follow the security reports, and
> don't patch and upgrade, then I will be just as open as any other
> distro..
> 
> But at least it is MY fault :)

Security, especially with free software, is always YOUR (rather,
the admin's) fault, regardless of whether you're using a binary
distro installation or LFS.

Wil
-- 
W. Reilly Cooley                           wcooley at nakedape.cc
Naked Ape Consulting                        http://nakedape.cc
irc.linux.com                                     #orlug,#lnxs

ink, n.:
	A villainous compound of tannogallate of iron, gum-arabic,
	and water, chiefly used to facilitate the infection of
	idiocy and promote intellectual crime.
		-- H.L. Mencken
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-security/attachments/20020226/b3e47697/attachment.sig>


More information about the lfs-security mailing list