On 10/24/07, Chris Wright <[email protected]> wrote:
> * Casey Schaufler ([email protected]) wrote:
> > And don't give me the old "LKML is a tough crowd" feldercarb.
> > Security modules have been much worse. Innovation, even in
> > security, is a good thing and treating people harshly, even
> > "for their own good", is an impediment to innovation.
>
> I agree that innovation is critical to the success of Linux, and security
> is not immune to that. The trouble is that most of the security modules
> that have come forward have had some real serious shortcomings.
Key-based masterlocks are easily broken with freon, and their combo
locks are easily brute-forced in about ten minutes. Yet, I'll still
use them to lock up my bike and garage.
The idea that poor security is worse than no security is fallacious,
and not backed up by common experience.
> I do
> believe it is prudent to keep in-tree security sensitive code under
> high scrutiny because we do not want to create security holes by adding
> problematic security code.
If security code actively *adds* holes, then that's obviously a deal breaker.
-
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]
