[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071027182911.GD4159@ucw.cz>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:29:12 +0000
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Ray Lee <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
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)
Hi!
> > > 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.
>
> (So, I take it that you *don't* lock your bike up, as poor security is
> worse than none?)
I do lock my bike with combination lock I found somewhere and cracked
in five minutes... sometimes.
But do you suggest that I use paper tape to 'lock' my bike to
streetlight? You just said that poor security is better than none,
right?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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