![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:43:31 +0200 pageexec@freemail.hu wrote: > consider how your whole patch is based on one big self-contradiction. > you already assume that the attacker *can* modify arbitrary kernel > memory (even the otherwise *read-only* syscall table at that), but at > the very same time you're saying he *can't* use the same powers to > patch out your 'protection' or do many other things to evade it. as > it is, it's cargo cult security at its best, reminding one on the > Vista kernel's similar 'protection' mechanism for the service > descriptor tables... so I'm not going to say that the patch is important or good; it's the result of ben mentioning the idea on irc and me thinking "sure lets see what it would take and cost". Nothing more than that -- If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@linux.intel.com For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2008-09-05 18:09 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||