[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: kernel module loading vs securelevel
On Oct 18, 2010, at 8:51 03AM, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 20:11:06 -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon
>> On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 04:04:59PM -0400, Matthew Mondor wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 13:58:19 -0400
>>> Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost> wrote:
>>>> 2) Finish the asymmetric operation support in cryptodev and
>>>> actually require modules to be signed. This is basically a
>>>> superset of #1 above that could get about as complicated as
>>>> one wanted it to (ugh) but might be worthwhile if kept simple.
>>> You seem to now agree with me that this could be a solution. It
>>> indeed requires more work, but it also has advantages: not having to
>> Let me know when you've got the code ready for review.
> *lurker mode off*
> IIRC, part of agc work with netpgp is to integrate signature verification
> within kernel.
> *lurker mode on*
Signatures provide *authentication*; what is needed here is *authorization*.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Main Index |
Thread Index |