4 comments

[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 22.1 ms ] thread
Wow, that's a new low. These guys are crazy. Just in case you didn't already know.
Yup. Doesn't play well with others. :'(

Fewer potential customers are going to use (or pay for) grsec now. It's like they decided to productize Linux kernel security their own way, free at first, and it didn't work out how they wanted, so start pointing fingers and blaming others.

It would be nicer if Linux security folks get funding and/or support from their work/customers to negotiate and cooperate with buy-in from the community from the start. If there's some rough edges, then consider starting a consultancy that helps customers configure or adapt the standard Linux security features (ie SELinux, etc.) and attempts to push previously discussed feature additions upstream. There's less drama and fewer headaches when there's a negotiated, common roadmap and understanding than just going full cowboy coding.

Seems like a classic attempt to stifle speech. In this case Perens was kind enough to start his statement with "it's my opinion," so it's pretty clear he's not making false statements of fact.

California's got anti-SLAPP laws, so hopefully this ends quickly and well for Perens.

https://www.popehat.com/2012/06/07/why-yes-i-am-into-slappin...

Regardless of how the court case turns out, I can't see this whole affair ending well for Grsecurity. They need good PR with the exact people that are likely to side against them in this matter.