Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/6] MODSIGN: Kernel module signing | | From | Valdis.Kletnieks@vt ... | | Date | Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:34:28 -0500 |
| |
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:14:53 PST, Andreas Gruenbacher said: > I agree, that's really what should happen. We solve this by marking modules as > supported, partner supported, or unsupported, but in an "insecure" way, so > partners and users could try to fake the support status of a module and/or > remove status flags from Oopses, and cryptography wouldn't save us.
Where cryptography *can* save you is that a partner or user can't fake a 'Suse Supported' signature without access to the Suse private key. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] |  |