Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:26:31 -0700 | | From | Casey Schaufler <> | | Subject | Re: [stable] Linux 2.6.25.10 |
Tiago Assumpcao wrote:
> Casey Schaufler wrote:>> Ted Tso, Stephen Smalley and I are all recognized as security experts
>> and we can't even agree on whether sockets are objects or not, much
>> less what constitutes a security bug and even less what is likely to
>> be a security bug. Goodness, there are some of us who would argue
>> that since DNS is itself a security bug it is just not possible for
>> DNS to have a security bug, as an example.>>>>> In most cases, they are easy to spot.>>>> Err, no, in the kernel environment a real security flaw is likely to
>> be pretty subtle.>> You do not hesitate in categorizing yourself as something as obscure
> as... what's that term again? "Expert".
Actually, I always hesitate before calling myself an expert,
in spite of the credentials I have to back the title. Too
many people seem to think that if you disagree with their
point of view you can't know what you're talking about.
> But then you fail on basic pragmatism when attempting to define what,
> nearly always, is a true or false question?
HeeHeeHee. Security questions are almost never true or false,
black or white, on or off. SPAM is *the* major computer security
issue and it has nothing at all to do with computers or security.
Is a use of strcpy() a security vulnerability? Sure it can be,
but in reality it almost never is, but the hysteria associated
with buffer overruns gave it a bad oder.
> Jeez ;)
It's not so bad. We'll be OK. Really.
|  |