Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:42:42 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: seccomp for 2.6.11-rc1-bk8 |
| |
Hi!
> > Well, seccomp is also getting very little testing, when ptrace gets a > > lot of testing; I know that seccomp is simple, but I believe testing > > coverage still make ptrace better choice. > > It's not testing that makes code more secure. Testing verifys the code > works in production, but testing almost never helps to find security > issues, and often not even hidden subtle race conditions. Check how many > security bugs have been found with testing. Just go to bugtraq count > them. I simply cannot relay on testing for the security part. I will > relay on testing for everything else but not for this.
Well, then you can help auditing ptrace()... It is probably also true that more people audited ptrace() than seccomp :-). Pavel -- People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers... ...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl! - 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/
| |