redhat-config-securitylevel vs redhat-config-firewall?

[Jack Bowling]

On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 05:45:04PM -0400, Jeremy Portzer wrote:
> Tommy McNeely wrote:
> 
> >
> >Also, why is it called redhat-config-securitylevel, when all it really
> >configures is the firewall.. wouldn't it make more sense to be called
> >redhat-config-firewall? isn't that what it used to be called? what other
> >security level stuff does it configure? :)
> >
> 
> I think the idea is that it only configures very basic options about the 
> iptables firewall.  It's only setting up generic firewall levels, rather 
> than being a full-fledged firewall configurator.  If you want more 
> complex things, you have to update the rules manually, or with another 
> application.

RH has been taken to task on this list previously for this apparent
episode of hubris. A firewall is only one aspect of system security and
thus I agree that r-c-firewall makes more sense.


-- 
Jack Bowling
mailto: jbinpg at shaw.ca