lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jun]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 9/9] x86-64: Add CONFIG_UNSAFE_VSYSCALLS to feature-removal-schedule

* pageexec@freemail.hu <pageexec@freemail.hu> wrote:

> > > Seriously. The whole patch series just seems annoying.
>
> what is annoying is your covering up of security fixes on grounds
> that you don't want to help script kiddies (a bullshit argument as
> it were) but at the same time question proactive security measures
> (one can debate the implementation, see my other mail) that would
> *actually* prevent the same kiddies from writing textbook exploits.

You are mixing up several issues here, and rather unfairly so.

Firstly, see my other mail, there's an imperfect balance to be
found between statistical 'proactive' measures and the incentives
that remove the *real* bugs. You have not replied to that mail of
mine so can i assume that you concur and accept my points? If yes
then why are you still arguing the same thing?

Secondly, *once* a real security bug has been found the correct
action is different from the considerations of proactive measures.
How can you possibly draw equivalence between disclosure policies
and the handling of statistical security measures?

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-06-06 16:47    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans