[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1e47c493458092b08701178d3a988b6f@pricom.com.au>
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2020 22:56:58 +1000
From: Philip Rhoades <phil@...com.com.au>
To: owl-users@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
Subject: Re: First post - OWL looks really nice! - Q1
Alexander,
Thanks for the response! - see inline comments:
On 2020-07-04 22:40, Solar Designer wrote:
> Hi Philip,
>
> It is surprising to see renewed interest in Owl now that the project
> has
> been on hold for a few years. I guess this might be related to the
> recent LinuxSecurity article, which I also found surprising, weird, and
> in some places factually wrong:
>
> https://linuxsecurity.com/features/features/7-best-linux-distros-for-security-and-privacy-in-2020
>
> For example, I use QubesOS, but I think (and heard Joanna say so) its
> reason to exist and its strongest side is the integration between VMs,
> which the article doesn't even mention. For Owl, I appreciate them
> acknowledging its influence, and I agree this is what's great about it,
> but much of the rest is factually wrong (e.g. we don't use SELinux) and
> I wouldn't recommend an on-hold project for new users except in some
> special cases (education, intent to take code or ideas from Owl, etc.)
> The article also confuses Owl the distro (which is on hold) with the
> rest of what we offer at Openwall (active projects and services).
>
> I don't know if this article is what brought you to here, but I guess
> it
> might have.
No but I will have a look at the article. I was actually looking for a
non-systemd Fedora-based distro and OWL was the only one result found
by:
https://distrowatch.com
> On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 11:19:07AM +1000, Philip Rhoades wrote:
>> OK, I have made a little progress - this my current OWL VM ifcfg-eth0:
>>
>> DEVICE=eth0
>> BOOTPROTO=static
>> IPADDR=192.168.122.206
>> NETMASK=255.255.255.0
>> NETWORK=192.168.122.0
>> BROADCAST=192.168.122.255
>> GATEWAY=192.168.122.1
>> DNS1=192.168.122.1
>>
>> and this allows me to ping and ssh into it from my F31 workstation but
>> I
>> still can't ping anything from it . . what am I missing?
>
> You were correct that you needed to provide static network
> configuration. This is because Owl is primarily for servers.
>
> You're probably still missing configuration on your F31 host, where
> you'd need to enable IPv4 forwarding and IP masquerading for traffic
> from these addresses leaving your host.
Right - usually when I use the same version of Fedora for the VM as on
the host for eg - all that networking is done automatically when the VM
is created - I will look a bit more closely . .
>> On 2020-07-04 03:10, Philip Rhoades wrote:
>> >I am also interested in using OWL for podman containers - I presume
>> >there will also be a networking issue there too?
>
> We use OpenVZ containers in Owl, not podman. I doubt you'd be able to
> easily use podman on Owl.
I am talking about the other way around OWL as the container on the F31
host - it would be a very nice minimal container . .
> Yes, indeed you need proper network configuration on Owl and on the
> host
> with the Owl VM for networking from containers on Owl to work.
I am guessing that the networking is still going to be an issue . . I
will get to that later.
I was really impressed with a Fedora-based iso being so small and fast!
- it would be nice to see how all of that was accomplished but I am
busier in retirement (on mostly non-profit stuff) than when I was
employed . .
Thanks for the feedback!
Regards,
Phil.
--
Philip Rhoades
PO Box 896
Cowra NSW 2794
Australia
E-mail: phil@...com.com.au
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
