Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 Oct 2004 22:11:47 +0200 | From | Tonnerre <> | Subject | Re: Fw: signed kernel modules? |
| |
Salut,
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 12:46:06PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > I'd disagree. Do you consider SELinux to be policy as well just because > it's in the kernel? > > As David said in his response, it's a mechanism. Whether _you_ choose > to use it or not decides the "policy". That's why I said put a config > option around it. You would still have _choice_.
Actually, even though I agree that Richard is overdramatizing, his point is not completely invalid. Remembering the trusted computing initiative, it's always a question of who holds the keys to your computer. In our case it's no problem, since we compile all the software on the computer ourselves, and thus we have full control over what we do.
What trusted computing revealed is that there is at least amongst some companies a desire to be able to dictate what's going on on your computer. Think Disney here.
Sure, TCPA is dead. But I've seen a TPM chip. On an Intel test board. IBM has them as well. I agree that we can trust all these entities now. But what's going to happen ten years from now? We don't know.
I'm not proclaiming paranoia. I don't say we should burn this patch alive. I only say that from time to time we have to take care of not getting to the Wernher von Braun excuse.
Tonnerre
PS. I did a module signing patch some years ago. I did a framework. I did tests. I got scared of its power. All I say is, take care. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |