[<prev] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <68ddbd79-bfcc-4b25-d231-d4e64c588849@guardiandigital.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 12:47:17 -0400
From: Dave Wreski <dwreski@...rdiandigital.com>
To: owl-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: First post - OWL looks really nice! - Q1
Hi,
> 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).
Thanks so much for the feedback. I'm the editor-in-chief for
LinuxSecurity and have been a subscriber to this list from the very
early days. I thought it was important to include Openwall because of
its significance in the open source community, and should have been more
clear in the article about its purpose and current role.
We've made some changes, and would welcome a review:
https://linuxsecurity.com/features/features/7-best-linux-distros-for-security-and-privacy-in-2020
Thanks,
Dave Wreski
>
> I don't know if this article is what brought you to here, but I guess it
> might have.
>
> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Alexander
>
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.
