Cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, Casey Schaufler <casey@...>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...>, Simon Arlott <simon@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-security-module@...>, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>, Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...>, Thomas Fricaccia <thomas_fricacci@...>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...>, James Morris <jmorris@...>, Crispin Cowan <crispin@...>, Giacomo Catenazzi <cate@...>
> > There is a ton of evidence both in computing and outside of it which
On the contrary because I know it is not secure I would
a) Insure it
b) Not waste vast amounts of money on a useless expensive lock
c) Make sure the bike looked not worth stealing
d) Take the saddle with me
(or the software versions of that
a) Keep backups
b) Not waste vast amounts of money on bogus security software
c) Keep the system looking uninteresting
d) Encrypt the data)
Yes and its very clear from the things said by politicians that if the
computer software people don't do this soon, the legislators will make
very sure they do by stripping away all the techniques used to hide from
liability for failure.
Absolutely - but those layers should do whatever they do *right* and
really do it, whether they are complex whole system controls like SELinux
or simple network security tools.
Alan
-
