Re: portaudit

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
_______________________________________________
freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"