Subject: Re: new lkm stuff ?
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Mike Long <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/28/1996 18:36:37
>From: Jaromir Dolecek <email@example.com>
>Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 19:48:19 +0200 (MET DST)
>I know it's stupid question, but let me know ... Why should
>be lkm a security hole ? If all the modules executables would be on one
>place maintained by root. I know nothing about that, but just as i feel
>it won't be dangerous. Or am i wrong ?
The idea of securelevel is that not even root is trustworthy. So
letting anyone, even root, load LKMs while securelevel is > 0
Mike Long <firstname.lastname@example.org> <URL:http://www.shore.net/~mikel>
VLSI Design Engineer finger email@example.com for PGP public key
Analog Devices, CPD Division CCBF225E7D3F7ECB2C8F7ABB15D9BE7B
Norwood, MA 02062 USA (eq (opinion 'ADI) (opinion 'mike)) -> nil