selinux??

[Ian Malone]

On 27 January 2016 at 02:41, Shawn Bakhtiar <shashaness at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 26, 2016, at 10:33 AM, Ian Malone <ibmalone at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 26 January 2016 at 17:23, Shawn Bakhtiar <shashaness at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 26, 2016, at 9:13 AM, Ian Malone <ibmalone at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 26 January 2016 at 17:07, Shawn Bakhtiar <shashaness at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I couldn't agree more bruce.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the 1% who get paid too much for doing too little that have such indulgent luxuries.
>>>>>
>>>>> The rest of us 99% have to work for it :P
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Remember that next time your bank gets hacked.
>>>>
>>> Seriously!!?!??! You're comparing a multi-bilion dollar multi-national institution with a SMB/SOHO engineer. Sorry they fall int the 1% last I checked.
>>
>> Every two bit company that leaks other people's data because they
>> can't be bothered makes things worse for its customers. Who are often
>> soon ex-customers. Which means SMBs become former SMBs.
>>
>
> This is such a load of fear mongering crap. You are acting as if SELinux is the end all and be all of security, which any “two bit” sysadmin can tell you it is not. It is a SMALL part of security one that for the pain it causes is simply not worth it.
>
> In fact there isn’t a single good reason to have SELinux enabled out of the box (or SystemD for that matter- whole other story).
>
> The functions it (as with systemD) servers are limited to a select area of operations.
>

It's fairly clear you've understood nothing I said. Pointless to continue.

-- 
imalone
http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk