linux-kernel - Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710241905160.21140@asgard.lang.hm>
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:11:45 -0700 (PDT)
From:	david@...g.hm
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
cc:	Ray Lee <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>, Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
	Simon Arlott <simon@...e.lp0.eu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>,
	Thomas Fricaccia <thomas_fricacci@...oo.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Crispin Cowan <crispin@...spincowan.com>,
	Giacomo Catenazzi <cate@...ian.org>
Subject: Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static
 interface)

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Alan Cox wrote:

>> The idea that poor security is worse than no security is fallacious,
>> and not backed up by common experience.
>
> There is a ton of evidence both in computing and outside of it which
> shows that poor security can be very much worse than no security at all.
> In particular stuff which makes users think they are secure but is
> worthless is very dangerous indeed.

there is also pleanty of evidence that you don't have to be perfect to be 
good enough.

in addition security is useually traded off for something else 
(useability, administrative effort, money, etc) and depending on what's 
being protected the cost that's appropriate is going to be different.

> When you know that security is limited you act appropriately, when you
> believe security is good but it is not you take inappropriate risks and
> get badly burned.

This is very true, but the solution isn't to try and eliminate everything 
other then perfect security, it's to properly document the limitations of 
various options and educate people about them.

David Lang
-
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/