Review: Copperhead OS

Re:Review: Copperhead OS by ece on Friday December 29, 2017 @04:48PM (#16032238)

Copperhead uses Grsecurity, and I used to use Grsecurity, when it was widely available, now that it's not and the developer has decided to act in hostile ways to the Linux community(1), it's made me rethink using his work and/or supporting him. Plenty of consultants make do fine without resorting to closing off their source code, and decide to act better with the community and/or companies.

(1) https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/12/22/grsecurity_defamati...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Review: Copperhead OS by jemsa on Friday December 29, 2017 @05:43PM (#16032540)

CopperheadOS doesn't use grsecurity anymore afaik. https://twitter.com/CopperheadOS/status/933684025624993792

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Review: Copperhead OS by bubblethink on Saturday December 30, 2017 @03:33AM (#16034424)

Actually, copperhead itself is sort of loosely following grsec's model, which is rather unfortunate. Their licences, where required will be GPL or compatible with upstream, but otherwise copperheadOS itself is not FOSS. I kind of get that it's hard to make money in such projects, but I really don't see how this strategy works for them, unless the goal is just to be bought out by someone.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Review: Copperhead OS by ece on Friday December 29, 2017 @06:11PM (#16032676)

Thanks for the link. Happy to hear they're maintaining Linux-hardened themselves.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Review: Copperhead OS by LukeShu on Friday December 29, 2017 @05:40PM (#16032521)

Copperhead maintains the -hardened patchset, which is essentially a fork of Grsecurity, largely because of those concerns. (I don't use CopperheadOS on my phone, but I do use their work in the form of linux-hardened on my desktop!)

[ Parent | on HN ]