Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 19:52:35 +0100 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: "Peter C. Lai" <sirmoo@cowbert.2y.net> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portaudit Message-ID: <40589E73.80209@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <20040317070051.GC716@cowbert.2y.net> References: <20040317070051.GC716@cowbert.2y.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter C. Lai wrote:
> Any reason why portaudit and its associated infrastructure was not announced to
> this list or security-notifications?
Sorry, I wasn't subscribed to security@ until recently, so I didn't though of
announcing portaudit on this list.
> I recently discovered it, and discovered
> the feature was added to bsd.port.mk in the beginning of feburary. Seeing as
> the security officer apparently (without announcement) no longer issues
> security notices (SNs) for ports, I am assuming that portaudit has replaced
> SNs entirely, and that we should rely on that for ports operational security?
> [...]
I'm sorry there has been so much confusion about portaudit. portaudit is fully
functional, so it should be pretty realiable if used on your systems, but here
are still some issues I want to straighten out before having an 1.0 release and
doing an official announcement:
- documented proxy handling
- more tunable parameters
- a start script for workstations which do not run periodic(8) scripts
- maybe add some auditing code to pkg_add
I hope to finish these Real Soon Now(tm), and will post an announcement then.
Thanks for you heads-up
Oliver
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40589E73.80209>