On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 07:24:42PM -0700, Thomas Fricaccia wrote:
> Yes, I think Crispin has succinctly summed it up: irrevocably closing
> the LSM prevents commercial customers from using security modules other
> than that provided by their Linux distributor.
Any "customer" using a security model other than provided by their Linux
distributor instantly voided all support from that distro by doing that.
So, since the support is gone, they can easily build their own kernels,
with their own LSM interfaces, and get the exact same lack of support :)
And, what are these "other LSM modules" you speak of that people rely on
to run their businesses?
> As Sarbanes-Oxley and
> other regulatory laws require these customers to use "standard
> kernels", the result is a rather dreary form of vendor lock-in, where the
> security framework is coupled to the distribution.
Wait, what?
Since when does Sarbanes-Oxley decree that a company must use a
"standard kernel"? And just exactly what defines such "standard
kernel"? Can you point out where in that bill it requires such a thing?
Totally confused,
greg k-h
-
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]
