On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 03:14:33PM +0800, Cliffe wrote: > Defense in depth has long been recognised as an important secure design > principle. Security is best achieved using a layered approach. "Layered approach" is not a magic incantation to excuse any bit of snake oil. Homeopathic remedies might not harm (pure water is pure water), but that's not an excuse for quackery. And frankly, most of the "security improvement" crowd sound exactly like woo-peddlers. - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface
- From: Crispin Cowan <[email protected]>
- Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface
- From: Cliffe <[email protected]>
- Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface
- References:
- Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
- From: "Rob Meijer" <[email protected]>
- Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
- From: Crispin Cowan <[email protected]>
- Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
- From: "Peter Dolding" <[email protected]>
- Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface
- From: Cliffe <[email protected]>
- Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
- Prev by Date: Re: [BUG] nfs: readv/writev with O_DIRECT fails on 2.6.24-rc1
- Next by Date: Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface
- Previous by thread: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface
- Next by thread: Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface
- Index(es):
 |