Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 28 Aug 1999 15:04:59 -0500 | From | Tymm Twillman <> | Subject | Re: idea: MAC level compression & crypto |
| |
Does this apply even if they aren't "for" crypto, but just happen to be good places for crypto code to latch on to? How is it decided? I mean, couldn't a call to main() be considered a crypto hook?
what if it's just named frobnostigate_data? even if it has to be considered a "debugging" hook, and a function written to strobe the caps lock indicator each time it's called, to give it semblance of legitimacy... then, two weeks later someone "notices" the potential and releases a crypto module...
-Tymm
On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Note we can't put crypto hooks into a kernel because America is stupid (not > > > America not Americans). They can go in the kerneli patches. Thats one > > > reason for just using ssh 8) > > > > btw, > > that question has been staying around for longer in my head: > > why there can not be HOOKS in kernel ? > > they arent crypto... > > Tell that to the US government. It sucks basically. > > > - > 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/ >
- 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/
| |