Messages in this thread | | | From | Gene Heskett <> | Subject | Re: Fw: signed kernel modules? | Date | Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:53:08 -0400 |
| |
On Friday 15 October 2004 08:31, Josh Boyer wrote: >On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 07:10, Richard B. Johnson wrote: >> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Roman Zippel wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, David Howells wrote: >> >> I've uploaded an updated module signing patch with Rusty's >> >> suggested additions: >> > >> > Can someone please put this patch into some context, where it's >> > not completely pointless? As is it does not make anything more >> > secure. Why is the kernel more trustable than a kernel module? >> > If someone could show me how I can trust the running kernel, it >> > should be rather easy to extend the same measures to modules >> > without the need for this patch. >> > >> > bye, Roman >> > - >> >> This is just the first step, which I think must be quashed >> immediately. The ultimate goal is to control what you put >> into your computer. Eventually, some central licensing >> authority will certify any modules that are allowed to >> be run in your computer. Doesn't anybody else see this? > >cd linux-2.6; >patch -R -p1 < ../<modsign patch name> > >josh > Yes, but what happens if it gets into the tarballs from kernel.org.
Stop this nonsense Linus, now.
-- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) 99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly Yahoo.com attorneys please note, additions to this message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2004 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |