From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HXz5c-0004DY-26 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:23:20 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l31CLNDC016363; Sun, 1 Apr 2007 12:21:23 GMT Received: from aa013msr.fastwebnet.it (aa013msr.fastwebnet.it [85.18.95.73]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l31CF2hX008449 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2007 12:15:02 GMT Received: from [37.1.3.90] (37.1.3.90) by aa013msr.fastwebnet.it (7.3.105.6) (authenticated as cyclopia) id 460D3E92001939F0 for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:15:02 +0200 Message-ID: <460FBFF9.8060503@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 14:21:45 +0000 From: "b.n." User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070305) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Any consequences to package.mask'ing newer kernels? References: <20070331055510.GA29960@waltdnes.org> <200703311303.41029.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> <460E86C5.5060608@gmail.com> <200703311611.42649.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> In-Reply-To: <200703311611.42649.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 564fd9d4-9a1a-4f09-a62f-210f89cb8dad X-Archives-Hash: 2babb86da2c6112ad49e1e7e7da35ef0 Hemmann, Volker Armin ha scritto: > In almost every kernel release a security problem is found, that is fixed in a > stable release. Stable release? AFAIK, *all* 2.6.x releases are stable releases. The days of double trees (2.4.x and 2.5.x) are gone. Probably I don't get what you mean. I use x86 kernels, not ~x86: that's what you mean as stable? I don't understand. > > and between that blue moons, your box is wide open to attacks. Well, if in *every* kernel there is *always* a security problem, my box is always open to attacks... :) (I understand your point, however. I didn't realize the linux kernel was so full of security holes. I thought it was one of the most secure components. Why aren't there GLSAs for the kernel?) > Which risk? Which mess? There is not a risk, if you use oldconfig. oldconfig doesn't always work well between major releases (2.6.x vs 2.6.x+1). >But there > is a big risk in security holes. True, but can you explain me the points above? m. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list