Subject: Re: verified executable kernel modification committed
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Klaus Heinz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/30/2002 02:20:48
Luke Mewburn wrote:
> At a minimum, the control program (and associated examples) should be
> "veriexecctl" or something like that (instead of "verifiedexec_load").
Wouldn't that be 'veriexeccfg'? As I understood the concept, you load
the signatures once, so there's nothing to control during run time.
Or do I have the meaning of *ctl and *cfg backwards?