esammons at hush.com
Thu Jun 21 21:15:20 EDT 2007
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I'll try to respond to everything at once...
I was actually thinking along David's (second post) lines of
stepping back for a bit and discussing the overall GOOD/EVIL
feeling we all have about the current state of the Honeywall. I'm
sure you have a lot of things to talk about after operating roos
for a while now...
Building applications that people can install on a running OS is
something we have all talked about casually in the past. I even
took some steps in that direction for roo-1.2 but didn't get there.
It would be a LOT of work because there are so many parts and
peices in our current setup and it isnt very modular which, once
again, begs for the design review discussion... Maybe we're making
this [current design] much more complicated than it needs to be?
CentOS is a logical progression from FC6 but I don't really want to
lock anything in until we discuss it a bit more. OS choice for the
next "installable" Honeywall should likely be an early discussion
Infrastructure? I think just some Wiki space to share ideas and
post whos doing what to start. What does everyone think? I really
want to keep the technology we have to manage minimal for now so it
doesnt just end up being wasteland... As more are willing to chip
in/maintain it, and we identify the need, we know who to call ;P
Thanks again for getting the lists going!
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 05:44:03 -0400 David Watson
<david at honeynet.org.uk> wrote:
>Arthur Clune wrote:
>> On 21 Jun 2007, at 09:57, David Watson wrote:
>>> How about setting out the current plan for Honeywall
>>> that v1.2 has gone public
>> David has just beat me to it. Another thing it would be good to
>> what you think might need doing to move to CentOS. That might be
>> thing for people to get involved in?
>One question to resolve should probably be 'does the honeywall
>need to be a full platform or can it just be a bundle of related
>applications you drop on a platform of your choice'. This seems to
>up often enough to merit some consideration.
>Probably jumping the gun slightly here, but IMHO a general
>weaknesses review of all our current honeynet technology would be
>worthwhile, to ensure that we are working on the most important
>challenges and delivering what most needs doing, rather than just
>ploughing on with a previous path.
>UK Honeynet Project
>david at honeynet.org.uk
>Honeywall mailing list
>Honeywall at public.honeynet.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 2.5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Honeywall