Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 21 Nov 1999 03:09:30 +0100 (CET) | From | Pjotr Kourzanoff <> | Subject | Re: Linux needs flexible security |
| |
On Sat, 20 Nov 1999, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> SNIPPED all. > > You just need a 'RUN' utility (Just like VAX/VMS). It is the only thing > that could fork() and exec..(). This is not Unix, but could be readily > encorporated into a system that uses the Linux kernel as a core, but > has modified 'C' runtime libraries. > > Any/all programs make their system calls through this utility. Foreign > programs wouldn't even execute. It's all been done before and it works > for good security.
Wow. Did you need a special binary for each syscall then? Will you need a special library libc library for each possible use of the syscall now? How do you propose to have multiple security layers? And how on earth can you have a debugger working with this?
> > > Cheers, > Dick Johnson > > Penguin : Linux version 2.3.13 on an i686 machine (400.59 BogoMips). > Warning : It's hard to remain at the trailing edge of technology. > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
pk. /***************************************************************** in a world without walls and borders who needs windows and gates ? *****************************************************************/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |