Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:26:31 -0700 | From | Casey Schaufler <> | Subject | Re: [stable] Linux 2.6.25.10 |
| |
Tiago Assumpcao wrote: > Casey Schaufler wrote: >> Ted Tso, Stephen Smalley and I are all recognized as security experts >> and we can't even agree on whether sockets are objects or not, much >> less what constitutes a security bug and even less what is likely to >> be a security bug. Goodness, there are some of us who would argue >> that since DNS is itself a security bug it is just not possible for >> DNS to have a security bug, as an example. >> >>> In most cases, they are easy to spot. >> >> Err, no, in the kernel environment a real security flaw is likely to >> be pretty subtle. > > You do not hesitate in categorizing yourself as something as obscure > as... what's that term again? "Expert".
Actually, I always hesitate before calling myself an expert, in spite of the credentials I have to back the title. Too many people seem to think that if you disagree with their point of view you can't know what you're talking about.
> But then you fail on basic pragmatism when attempting to define what, > nearly always, is a true or false question?
HeeHeeHee. Security questions are almost never true or false, black or white, on or off. SPAM is *the* major computer security issue and it has nothing at all to do with computers or security. Is a use of strcpy() a security vulnerability? Sure it can be, but in reality it almost never is, but the hysteria associated with buffer overruns gave it a bad oder.
> Jeez ;)
It's not so bad. We'll be OK. Really.
| |