| 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: <AANLkTinIVaTocIgStpwKlXDByS7Z9t_OxJDYg0DoUMIN@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 11:53:06 +0500 From: Shaz <shazalive@...il.com> To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...ia.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org" <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, David Safford <safford@...son.ibm.com>, Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, securityengineeringresearchgroup <securityengineeringresearchgroup@...glegroups.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] EVM > Yes, verifying one file containing the hashes would be faster than > verifying individual hashes stored as extended attributes (xattrs), but > this does not take into account that files on a running system are being > modified or added. On a small form factor, the number of files is > limited, but would this scale well? In addition, what protects that one > file containing all the hashes from being modified? So, if you limit How about sealing to protect this file? > the types of files to those that don't change, and the number of file > hashes, then using a single file would be faster. -- Shaz -- 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