> Trying to depend on task name for anything security sensitive is at > _really_ bad idea, so it seems unlikely that a LSM would want to > protect the process name. (And if they did, the first thing I would > ask is "Why? What are you trying to do? Do you realize how many > *other* ways the process name can be spoofed or otherwise controlled > by a potentially malicious user?")
Two processes that should not be able to otherwise communicate can keep changing their name to a chunk of data, waiting for an ack flag name change back. Alan
