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

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

view
thread

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

[view in full thread]

From: Cliffe <cliffe@...>

To: Al Viro <viro@...>

Cc: <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-security-module@...>

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

Date: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 4:00 am

Al Viro wrote:
quoted text> 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.
>   

I agree completely; but layers that provide actual security improvements 
are important.

--

Z. Cliffe Schreuders
BSc Comp Sci (Hons) & Int Comp
PhD Candidate, Casual Tutor
School of IT
Murdoch University
-
unsubscribe noticeTo unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:

Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Rob Meijer, (Mon Oct 29, 3:04 pm)

Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Casey Schaufler, (Mon Oct 29, 4:27 pm)

Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Crispin Cowan, (Mon Oct 29, 3:41 pm)

Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Peter Dolding, (Tue Oct 30, 1:13 am)

Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Jan Engelhardt, (Tue Oct 30, 2:42 pm)

Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Peter Dolding, (Tue Oct 30, 7:38 pm)

Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., , (Tue Oct 30, 8:16 pm)

Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Peter Dolding, (Tue Oct 30, 10:21 pm)

Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Crispin Cowan, (Wed Oct 31, 2:43 am)

Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Toshiharu Harada, (Wed Oct 31, 6:10 am)

Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Peter Dolding, (Wed Oct 31, 10:04 pm)

Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Casey Schaufler, (Wed Oct 31, 10:20 pm)

Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Peter Dolding, (Wed Oct 31, 10:51 pm)

Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Andrew Morgan, (Mon Nov 5, 2:56 am)

Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Serge E. Hallyn, (Mon Nov 5, 9:29 am)

Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Jan Engelhardt, (Thu Nov 1, 3:17 am)

Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., David Newall, (Thu Nov 1, 7:49 am)

Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Peter Dolding, (Sat Nov 3, 9:28 pm)

Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Peter Dolding, (Wed Oct 31, 5:03 am)

Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., , (Wed Oct 31, 1:08 am)

Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Casey Schaufler, (Tue Oct 30, 11:43 pm)

Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Casey Schaufler, (Tue Oct 30, 3:14 pm)

Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Jan Engelhardt, (Tue Oct 30, 3:50 pm)

Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Cliffe, (Tue Oct 30, 3:14 am)

Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Simon Arlott, (Tue Oct 30, 8:30 am)

Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Crispin Cowan, (Mon Nov 5, 11:46 pm)

Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Cliffe, (Tue Nov 6, 3:26 am)

Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Peter Dolding, (Tue Nov 6, 7:59 pm)

Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Cliffe, (Tue Nov 6, 11:50 pm)

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, Tetsuo Handa, (Wed Nov 7, 12:11 am)

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, Peter Dolding, (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, Crispin Cowan, (Tue Oct 30, 3:55 am)

Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Casey Schaufler, (Tue Oct 30, 11:01 am)

Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Cliffe, (Tue Oct 30, 4:00 am)

Navigation

Popular discussions


linux-kernel:
Tarkan Erimer	Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Greg Kroah-Hartman	[PATCH 006/196] Chinese: add translation of oops-tracing.txt
Jan Engelhardt	intel iommu (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23)
David Miller	Re: [PATCH] Stop pmac_zilog from abusing 8250's device numbers.
git:

openbsd-misc:

linux-netdev:
David Miller	[GIT]: Networking
Jarek Poplawski	Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock().
Gerrit Renker	[PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side)
Linus Torvalds	Re: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397ace5489eeb6e15d7d49

Colocation donated by:

Who's online

There are currently 4 users and 651 guests online.

Online users

Syndicate