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

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:14:53 PST, Andreas Gruenbacher said:
> I agree, that's really what should happen. We solve this by marking modules as
> supported, partner supported, or unsupported, but in an "insecure" way, so
> partners and users could try to fake the support status of a module and/or
> remove status flags from Oopses, and cryptography wouldn't save us.

Where cryptography *can* save you is that a partner or user can't fake a
'Suse Supported' signature without access to the Suse private key.

Attachment: pgpejV5RmyF4J.pgp
Description: PGP signature

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH 0/6] MODSIGN: Kernel module signing
    • From: Andreas Gruenbacher <[email protected]>

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

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] serial driver PMC MSP71xx, kernel linux-mips.git master
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 2/7] containers (V7): Cpusets hooked into containers
• 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]