Linux

53416 readers

615 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

Comprehensive guide to hardening RHEL clones? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 6 days ago by marauding_gibberish142@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/linux@lemmy.ml

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Is there some sort of comprehensive guide on hardening RHEL clones like Alma and Rocky?

I have read Madaidan's blog, and I plan to go through CIS policies, Alma and Rocky documentation and other general stuff like KSPP, musl, LibreSSL, hardened_malloc etc.

But I feel like this is not enough and I will likely face problems that I cannot solve. Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel by myself, I thought I'd ask if anyone has done this before so I can use their guide as a baseline. Maybe there's a community guide on hardening either of these two? I'd contribute to its maintenance if there is one.

Thanks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

secureblue is about as secure as Linux can get...

Unless you have an unusual threat model, this statement is utter nonsense. I can run a kconfig stripped kernel with zero kernel modules and one userspace process that is completely audited and trusted, without the ability to spawn even other processes or talk to network (because the kernel lacks support for the IP stack).

Secureblue might offer something significant when compared to other popular and easily usable tools, but if you compare it to the theoretical limit of Linux security, its not even comparable.

I examined Secureblue's kernel parameters and turned multiple of them off because some were mitigations for something that was unnecessary. IE: The kernel would make the analysis that your hardware is not affected by a vulnerability, and thus there is no need to enable a specific mitigation. But they would override this and force the mitigation, so you take a performance hit, for what I understand to be, no security gain. Not sure why they did that, a mistake? Or did they simply not trust the kernel's analysis for some reason? Who knows.

[–] marauding_gibberish142@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 days ago

You're right, secureblue isn't quite there when talking about security on desktop/server Linux.