| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702152143470.14458@scrub.home> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:01:40 +0100 (CET) From: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org> To: David Lang <david.lang@...italinsight.com> cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, torvalds@...l.org, akpm@...l.org, herbert.xu@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, davej@...hat.com, arjan@...radead.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] MODSIGN: Kernel module signing Hi, On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, David Lang wrote: > this issue, and these holes keep comeing up in discussions, why can't these > holes be closed? I seem to remember seeing patches that would remove /dev/kmem > being sent to the list, but they weren't accepted into the kernel (and I seem > to remember people being against the concept of removeing them, not against > techincal details of the patches. but this was many years ago) 1. It depends on the ratio of added code and its usefulness. I must assume the first patch didn't even make it to the kernel due to its size, so I think it's not unreasonable to explore the alternatives. 2. There are many ways to load an unauthorized module, thus you have to prevent any modification of the kernel not just in memory but also on disk. bye, Roman - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists