Re: [PATCH 0/6] MODSIGN: Kernel module signing

Hi,

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007, David Howells wrote:

> Now, this is not a complete solution by any means: the core kernel is not
> protected, and nor are /dev/mem or /dev/kmem, but it denies (or at least
> controls) one relatively simple attack vector.

This is really the weak point - it offers no advantage over an equivalent 
implementation in user space (e.g. in the module tools). So why has to be 
done in the kernel?

bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH 0/6] MODSIGN: Kernel module signing
    • From: David Howells <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] Optimize generic get_unaligned / put_unaligned implementations.
• Next by Date: Re: 2.6.20-mm1 [kernel BUG at mm/swap.c:442]
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 0/6] MODSIGN: Kernel module signing
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 0/6] MODSIGN: Kernel module signing
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]