lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateFri, 15 Oct 2004 16:28:17 +0200 (CEST)
FromRoman Zippel <>
SubjectRe: Fw: signed kernel modules?
Hi,

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, David Woodhouse wrote:

> > 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?
>
> Because it's not that hard to put the kernel onto read-only media or in
> a flash chip to which you physically cut the Vpen line.

So put the modules there as well or put a ramdisk there that does module
verifying and loading (and disable module loading after that).
Again, why is this patch necessary? I have to repeat my main point from
the last mail: 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.
Show me a way that this is not possible and I'll agree with you that this
patch is needed.

bye, Roman
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [from the cache]
©2003-2010