R: [rsbac] Re: 1.2.0 backport to 2.2 kernels?

Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:05:51 +0300

--------------090408050707090506000207
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Amon Ott wrote:

>On Wednesday, 27. February 2002 07:35, Alberto Guglielmo wrote:
>
>>To encourage Marc Martinez.....
>>Especially if you employ it in a firewall, the 2.4.x kernel has many
>>advantages, one for all, iptables!
>>I currently have some firewall boxes with 2.4 kernels and RSBAC (1.1.2, I
>>wait 1.2 "stable" ...) with full satisfaction, ok, about full ;-)
>>
>
>My own firewall configs have been switched to 2.4 when 2.4.13 came out. As a 
>rule of thump, .13 is usually the first really stable version... ;)
>
>You can still use ipchains with the new kernels (what I did some time for 
>backwards compatibility). The only thing badly missing is FTP masquerading.
>
>This has been dropped on 2.4.16 with ext3 on board, which is really worth the 
>upgrade. I cannot afford firewalls at remote customer sites not to come up 
>after a crash.
>
>However, if people really need 2.2, the port could be done.
>
2.4 still unstable, so people need 2.2 for real security servers.
We have both 2.4 and 2.2 in the Castle distibution, so we need 2.2 port.

---------------------------------------
With best regards
Stanislav Ievlev.

>
>
>Amon.
>--
>http://www.rsbac.org
>_______________________________________________
>rsbac mailing list
>rsbac@rsbac.org
>http://www.rsbac.org/mailman/listinfo/rsbac
>

--------------090408050707090506000207
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <title></title>
</head>
<body>
Amon Ott wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:16fzys-0ajP3Aa@fmrl00.sul.t-online.com">
  <pre wrap="">On Wednesday, 27. February 2002 07:35, Alberto Guglielmo wrote:<br></pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">To encourage Marc Martinez.....<br>Especially if you employ it in a firewall, the 2.4.x kernel has many<br>advantages, one for all, iptables!<br>I currently have some firewall boxes with 2.4 kernels and RSBAC (1.1.2, I<br>wait 1.2 "stable" ...) with full satisfaction, ok, about full ;-)<br></pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap=""><!----><br>My own firewall configs have been switched to 2.4 when 2.4.13 came out. As a <br>rule of thump, .13 is usually the first really stable version... ;)<br><br>You can still use ipchains with the new kernels (what I did some time for <br>backwards compatibility). The only thing badly missing is FTP masquerading.<br><br>This has been dropped on 2.4.16 with ext3 on board, which is really worth the <br>upgrade. I cannot afford firewalls at remote customer sites not to come up <br>after a crash.<br><br>However, if people really need 2.2, the port could be done.</pre>
    </blockquote>
2.4 still unstable, so people need 2.2 for real security servers.<br>
We have both 2.4 and 2.2 in the Castle distibution, so we need 2.2 port.<br>
    <br>
---------------------------------------<br>
With best regards<br>
Stanislav Ievlev.<br>
    <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:16fzys-0ajP3Aa@fmrl00.sul.t-online.com">
      <pre wrap=""><br><br>Amon.<br>--<br><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.rsbac.org">http://www.rsbac.org</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>rsbac mailing list<br><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rsbac@rsbac.org">rsbac@rsbac.org</a><br><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.rsbac.org/mailman/listinfo/rsbac">http://www.rsbac.org/mailman/listinfo/rsbac</a><br></pre>
      </blockquote>
      <br>
      <br>
      </body>
      </html>

--------------090408050707090506000207--