Re: module's use of security_ops

Previous message: David Wagner: "Re: Where Are We?"
In reply to: jmjonesat_private: "Re: module's use of security_ops"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

dawat_private

>By obfuscating the pointer to the WHOLE [security_ops] structure we
>1) lessen the "ease" of whole-security cracks...

Look, I'm a little scared to send this, because I don't want to get into
yet another a discussion of just how silly security through obscurity is
(I've had more than my share, thanks), but:

Hiding security_ops for obfuscation reasons is really silly.  We shouldn't
waste a second of our time in dismissing security through obscurity: this
should be a no-brainer.

(Or maybe there is room for debate after all: perhaps arguably I should
have written ``really, really silly'' instead?)

Note: I'm not commenting on the merits of your other arguments.

_______________________________________________
linux-security-module mailing list
linux-security-moduleat_private
http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module