I am of the opinion that the kernel is for interfacing the hardware with the software. The leaner the meaner. As long as these functions are optional, and replaceable with third party apps, develop whatever you feel the need for. Most of the functions you mention (IDS, Checksums, Alerts.) I implement thru seperate programs, and therefore do not need to bloat my kernel with them. Slapping around new programmers more often so they write better code would be the preferred solution. On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Neil Doane wrote: > * Steve Baker (ice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) on [07-14-00 13:33] did utter: > > really, once you get down to it, a good VM, memory protection, filesystems, > > networking and the like are all that really belong in the kernel > > I'm curious as to what people here think about integrated kernel-level > security features like SecureBSD's MDA hash check-before-execute features or > the myriad kernel-level features of things like the Linux Intrusion > Detection System (www.lids.org) (send security alerts through network > (mail/remote syslog/http POST) directly from kernel, or limiting access > to raw devices or io ports to only pre-specified processes.) I mean, > SecureBSD has a database of the checksums of every binary on its system > floating around in memory (I guess) and LIDS is implementing its own MTA > _inside the kernel_ (among other things). > > Is this going overboard or not? Opinions? > > > > > Neil > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > . /._ o / --personal="caine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" > /|//- / / --business="caine@xxxxxxxxxxx" > / ''- / /__ --homepage="http://antediluvian.org/" > ' > ~~ http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > --- Mike Taylor Coordinator of Systems Administration and Network Security Indiana State University. Rankin Hall Rm 039 210 N 7th St. Terre Haute, IN. Voice: 812-237-8843 47809 --- "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it." --Scott McNealy, Sun MicroSystems.