lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: secure computing for 2.6.7
Date
In article <20040801155128.GG6295@dualathlon.random> you wrote:
>> where this has applied fix 3501 in the 2.6 branch and 123 according to
>> vendor MM, so you do not need to understand vendors XXX schema. However I am
>
> if all vendors uses different numbers (i.e. vendor MM.123) then I can as
> well build the ugly database in function of the `uname -r`
> vendorization, building a database of uname -r or a database of
> MM/linux-26/whatever isn't going to be any different.

This is not about different vendors certifying the same level. Mainstream
software will always require a general fix-level, however internal software
may require some other hardening/configuration. Distributions and even end
users could use that string to certify "this build is compliant to
requirement level 123"

But I agree, it might be overkill for the utsname, however I feel leaving
that out of a secure level syscall may be underkill .)

Greetings
Bernd
--
eckes privat - http://www.eckes.org/
Project Freefire - http://www.freefire.org/
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04    [W:0.103 / U:0.716 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site