


Yeah sure. My question was rather if hardened sources - Pax == vanilla sources or there is some hardening even without PaX/Grsecurity enabled.eccerr0r wrote:Security is always a tradeoff for convenience.
If you're willing to sacrifice security (PaX) to get convenience (less breakage) then sure...
To quantify the security loss, it all depends on the person hacking your machine...


I think there are at least some shadows of grey between running military grade SELinux installation and ignoring error about self-signed certificate when you enter bank website... Security is obviously not all-or-nothing but need to be balanced against usability.eccerr0r wrote:A lot of the security things are needed in conjunction with each other - removing one will weaken the remaining...
I view it as all or nothing.
I think you are answering not the question I am asking I am afraid. In my threat model I deem hardening as nice to have but not strictly necessary. I would like to just know if hardened sources contain any improvement other then PaX itself.eccerr0r wrote:Most of my machines I just run nothing and depend on correctness by design... Yeah...right... Convenience ended up winning out.