Security Questions.

Hi.

I'm a newbie so don't laugh at these questions.

Why is the NSA developing Linux with (Mandatory Access Control) /MAC while
FreeBSD has had this for sometime?

SELinux
http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/

Why don't they use one of the BSD's ?


Question 2

Read about Yahoo and FreeBSD.
http://www.ictp.trieste.it/~cfonda/s...d_FreeBSD.html

Why don't they track the stable branch?

We started with a single Pentium 100 box running FreeBSD 2.0.5. We
eventually migrated the rest of our production servers to FreeBSD and today
we have over 50 servers running various versions of 2.1 STABLE. We are in
the process of testing 2.2 STABLE and hope to convert during the next 6
months.

Noob

Noob wrote:

> Hi.
>
> I'm a newbie so don't laugh at these questions.
>
> Why is the NSA developing Linux with (Mandatory Access Control) /MAC while
> FreeBSD has had this for sometime?

I am not sure if FreeBSD has had this for a long time. I believe it came out
with 4.8 or 4.9...

> SELinux
> http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/
>
> Why don't they use one of the BSD's ?

A lot of the code is shared so it probably is improvements that they are
working on...

>
> Question 2
>
> Read about Yahoo and FreeBSD.
>
http://www.ictp.trieste.it/~cfonda/s...d_FreeBSD.html
>
> Why don't they track the stable branch?
>
> We started with a single Pentium 100 box running FreeBSD 2.0.5. We
> eventually migrated the rest of our production servers to FreeBSD and
> today we have over 50 servers running various versions of 2.1 STABLE. We
> are in the process of testing 2.2 STABLE and hope to convert during the
> next 6 months.

Why are you using such an old version? The current stable version is 5.4...


Michael

Michael J. Pelletier

Michael J. Pelletier wrote:
> Noob wrote:
> http://www.ictp.trieste.it/~cfonda/s...d_FreeBSD.html
>
>>Why don't they track the stable branch?
>>
>>We started with a single Pentium 100 box running FreeBSD 2.0.5. We
>>eventually migrated the rest of our production servers to FreeBSD and
>>today we have over 50 servers running various versions of 2.1 STABLE. We
>>are in the process of testing 2.2 STABLE and hope to convert during the
>>next 6 months.
>
>
> Why are you using such an old version? The current stable version is 5.4...

lol Who's on first base?

The OP forgot to quote that paragraph from the referenced news article.
Those are not the OP's words, but I also thought they were after
reading the question.

In partial answer, I believe this article is at least a few years old.

birdpup

Noob <> writes:

>Hi.

>I'm a newbie so don't laugh at these questions.

>Why is the NSA developing Linux with (Mandatory Access Control) /MAC while
>FreeBSD has had this for sometime?

>SELinux
>http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/

>Why don't they use one of the BSD's ?

Because far more people use Linux than BSD.



>Question 2

>Read about Yahoo and FreeBSD.
>http://www.ictp.trieste.it/~cfonda/s...d_FreeBSD.html

>Why don't they track the stable branch?

??? Ask them.


>We started with a single Pentium 100 box running FreeBSD 2.0.5. We
>eventually migrated the rest of our production servers to FreeBSD and today
>we have over 50 servers running various versions of 2.1 STABLE. We are in
>the process of testing 2.2 STABLE and hope to convert during the next 6
>months.

Excellent. So your question were rhetorical I assume.

Unruh

birdpup wrote:

> Michael J. Pelletier wrote:
>> Noob wrote:
>>
http://www.ictp.trieste.it/~cfonda/s...d_FreeBSD.html
>>
>>>Why don't they track the stable branch?
>>>
>>>We started with a single Pentium 100 box running FreeBSD 2.0.5. We
>>>eventually migrated the rest of our production servers to FreeBSD and
>>>today we have over 50 servers running various versions of 2.1 STABLE. We
>>>are in the process of testing 2.2 STABLE and hope to convert during the
>>>next 6 months.
>>
>>
>> Why are you using such an old version? The current stable version is
>> 5.4...
>
> lol Who's on first base?
>
> The OP forgot to quote that paragraph from the referenced news article.
> Those are not the OP's words, but I also thought they were after
> reading the question.
>
> In partial answer, I believe this article is at least a few years old.

Ah...that makes sense

Michael J. Pelletier

In article <GV0we.12200$>, Noob <> wrote:
>Read about Yahoo and FreeBSD.
>http://www.ictp.trieste.it/~cfonda/s...d_FreeBSD.html

Published in 1999.
http://www.my-opensource.org/lists/m.../msg00139.html

Arnoud




--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/

Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet

In the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
<GV0we.12200$>, Noob wrote:

> Why is the NSA developing Linux with (Mandatory Access Control) /MAC while
> FreeBSD has had this for sometime?

How long is "sometime"? SELinux was initially available in late 2000.

>Why don't they use one of the BSD's ?

From their FAQ:

Why was Linux chosen as the base platform?

Linux was chosen as the platform for the work because of its growing
success and open development environment. Linux provides an excellent
opportunity to demonstrate that this functionality can be successful
in a mainstream operating system and, at the same time, contribute to
the security of a widely used system. A Linux platform also offers an
excellent opportunity for this work to receive the widest possible
review and perhaps provide the foundation for additional security
research by others.

So it might appear to be popularity.

Old guy

Moe Trin