[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Fw: signed kernel modules?
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>
Yes, but what happens if it gets into the tarballs from

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 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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.149 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site