linux-kernel - Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a 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: <20071030065540.GH8181@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Tue, 30 Oct 2007 06:55:40 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Cliffe <cliffe@...net>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface

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 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/