Albert Cahalan wrote:
>>
>> That's fine. That's a policy decision. That's what a security policy
>> *is*. The owner of the system has decided, by security policy, that
>> that is not allowed. Bypassing that is not acceptable.
>
> Fixing a bug should be acceptable.
>
That's not what you're trying to do, though. You're trying to change
the behaviour underneath the security policy. If there is a bug, it's
in the security policy and that's where it needs to be changed.
> Look, let's back up a bit here. At a high level, what exactly do
> you imagine that this behavior was intended for? I suggest you
> list some examples of the attacks that are blocked.
>
> Can you come up with a reasonable argument that the current behavior
> is the least painful restriction required to block those attacks?
> Does the current behavior block any attack that the proposed behavior
> would not? (list the attacks please)
See above.
-hpa
-
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/
[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]
