Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Fw: signed kernel modules? | From | Josh Boyer <> | Date | Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:31:32 -0500 |
| |
On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 07:10, Richard B. Johnson wrote: > On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Roman Zippel wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, David Howells wrote: > > > >> I've uploaded an updated module signing patch with Rusty's suggested > >> additions: > > > > Can someone please put this patch into some context, where it's not > > completely pointless? As is it does not make anything more secure. > > Why is the kernel more trustable than a kernel module? > > If someone could show me how I can trust the running kernel, it should be > > rather easy to extend the same measures to modules without the need for > > this patch. > > > > bye, Roman > > - > > This is just the first step, which I think must be quashed > immediately. The ultimate goal is to control what you put > into your computer. Eventually, some central licensing > authority will certify any modules that are allowed to > be run in your computer. Doesn't anybody else see this?
cd linux-2.6; patch -R -p1 < ../<modsign patch name>
josh
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |