On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:02, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would be very interested, Russel, to hear your opinion about the
> claim that the LSM hooks are dangerous in terms of root kit
> exploits. Do you agree? If not, then please tell us what LSM
> precautions take care to prevent
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:02, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would be very interested, Russel, to hear your opinion about the
> claim that the LSM hooks are dangerous in terms of root kit
> exploits. Do you agree? If not, then please tell us what LSM
> precautions take care to prevent
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, martin f krafft wrote:
> I would be very interested, Russel, to hear your opinion about the
> claim that the LSM hooks are dangerous in terms of root kit
> exploits. Do you agree? If not, then please tell us what LSM
> precautions take care to prevent that.
Given the patch-the
also sprach Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.11.30.1324 +0100]:
> LSM was not invented by the SE Linux people, it was requested by
> Linus as a way of enabling the integration of multiple security
> systems into the kernel. It's a pity that the developers of other
> security systems didn't
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, martin f krafft wrote:
> I would be very interested, Russel, to hear your opinion about the
> claim that the LSM hooks are dangerous in terms of root kit
> exploits. Do you agree? If not, then please tell us what LSM
> precautions take care to prevent that.
Given the patch-the
also sprach Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.11.30.1324 +0100]:
> LSM was not invented by the SE Linux people, it was requested by
> Linus as a way of enabling the integration of multiple security
> systems into the kernel. It's a pity that the developers of other
> security systems didn't
6 matches
Mail list logo
