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  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]
Date:	Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:55:27 -0700
From:	Crispin Cowan <>
To:	Al Viro <>
CC:	Cliffe <>,,
Subject: Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface

Al Viro wrote:
> 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.
Frank's point was that the static interface makes layering somewhere
between impractical and impossible. The static interface change should
be dumped so that layering is at least possible. Whether any given
security module is worth while is a separate issue.

I.e. that there are bad medicines around is a poor excuse to ban
syringes and demand that everyone be born with a strong immune system.

Why is it that security flame wars always end up reasoning with absurd
analogies? :-)


Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.     
CEO, Mercenary Linux
	       Itanium. Vista. GPLv3. Complexity at work

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists