I understand that the NSA developed SElinux, and it was integrated into the Kernel in '03. I was wondering 2 things: Was an extensive audit of the code performed, or was it integrated almost immediately? And is the NSA actively developing the Linux kernel with the rest of the devs? I understand if no one can answer my questions, I was just curious. The reason I was wondering about if the NSA was developing the Linux kernel is because of the recently unveiled surveillance program(s). No one seems to know how long this has been going on, I personally have only been aware since March of last year.

Try not to be so paranoid, but don't be complacent either.

"Nothing is exactly as it seems, nor is it otherwise." -- Alan Watts

It's open source. You're supposed to be auditing it yourself.

I don't trust SELinux, but some people may choose to use it. I have no use for it, don't think it is a good idea to root yourself out of your own system, and don't trust them (no full audit, NSA is known for putting in back doors, see Window$). Also see:
http://cyberwarzone.com/did-nsa-put-...ption-standard

What I'm wondering is what really happened back when Linux was hacked a few years back. No full report of what really happened was ever posted. BSD did a much better job when they were hacked, and posted a full report ASAP. Maybe I should move to BSD ...

In doubt it's better don't use it.
You are not paranoic but only worried about privacy that seems no exists

I've used FreeBSD for years. It is a solid platform but lacks kernel support for a lot of devices that have been in the Linux kernel for years. It will also be a little farther behind in supporting new hardware that Linux already has working. I like BSD but I don't think that I trust BSD more than Linux. It's a different philosophy of how kernel-systemland-userland should work. It's aimed at a different audience. Also a different license.

You may or may not have missed this

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...d-ipsec-stack/

http://www.h-online.com/security/new...D-1153297.html

Haven't really heard anything else on it that I can remember.

From what I've read (have considered PC-BSD, still do sometimes) The BSD's are somewhat different, just like distros more or less, but like Linux use a central kernel, Am I right or am I wrong ?

So here is a list of known issues.

http://www.cvedetails.com/product/7/...ml?vendor_id=6


versus RH

http://www.cvedetails.com/vendor/25/Redhat.html

Yeah, I missed it, I don't use BSD, so I don't keep up with the news on it.

Nope, every BSD version has its own kernel (if you don't count count versions like PC-BSD, which is mainly FreeBSD made fit for the desktop). Many parts of them are shared (mostly drivers), but they don't use one kernel in all BSDs, like Linux does.

Well alrighty then, Good to know. Thanks for the info TobiSGD.

Well, abcde597, you thought of it first:

ITWire - Does the NSA's SE Linux code need a review?

Just because you are paranoid doesn't meant that they aren't out to get you.

Run Slackware: the backdoor free, low carbon footprint, less fattening distro.

...