login
Header Space

 
 

Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface

Score:
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Cliffe <cliffe@...>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-security-module@...>
Date: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 2:55 am

On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 03:14:33PM +0800, Cliffe wrote:
 
"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.
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Casey Schaufler, (Tue Nov 6, 11:35 pm)
Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Casey Schaufler, (Wed Nov 7, 12:34 am)
Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Al Viro, (Tue Oct 30, 2:55 am)
Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Casey Schaufler, (Tue Oct 30, 11:01 am)
speck-geostationary