Re: [PATCH] net device hooks

From: Crispin Cowan (crispinat_private)
Date: Wed Jul 25 2001 - 00:46:13 PDT

  • Next message: James Morris: "[PATCH] net device hooks (v.2)"

    jmjonesat_private wrote:
    
    > On 24 Jul 2001, David Wagner wrote:
    >
    > > Let me propose as a starting point that we don't want any hooks
    > > that are obviously insecure (such as being vulnerable to a race
    > > condition).  If we all agree on this as a starting point for the
    > > discussion, then maybe that will allow us to settle the issue of
    > > how many ioctl() hooks we want in the same way we settle the issue
    > > for every other type of hook.  (Am I missing some complexity?)
    > >
    >
    > Let me add my 0.2 virtual votes to this toward "seconding it".  There is
    > some concern about the word "obviously"... perhaps change it to
    > "demonstrably?"
    
    If you're speaking informally, then this is just mincing words, and of no
    consequence.
    
    If you actually mean "demonstrably" as in "can be demonstrated" ... you
    CANNOT demonstrate security. You can only demonstrate insecurity, i.e. with
    an exploit.
    
    Crispin
    
    --
    Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
    Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc. http://wirex.com
    Security Hardened Linux Distribution:       http://immunix.org
    Available for purchase: http://wirex.com/Products/Immunix/purchase.html
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    linux-security-module mailing list
    linux-security-moduleat_private
    http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jul 25 2001 - 01:00:29 PDT