Re: GPL only usage of security.h

From: Martin Stricker (shugalat_private)
Date: Mon Sep 24 2001 - 17:29:44 PDT

  • Next message: Crispin Cowan: "Re: Binary only module overview"

    Crispin Cowan wrote:
    > 
    > Greg KH wrote:
    > 
    > >On Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 09:10:14PM -0700, Crispin Cowan wrote:
    > >
    > >>Perhaps we should LGPL the security.h.  Does that create problems?
    > >>
    > >I would object to this.  That would be granting the explicit right
    > >for it to be used in closed source binaries.  I do not want to grant
    > >that explicit right.
    > >
    > That is exactly what I always intended LSM to do.
    
    Really interesting discussion. Sice I didn't wrote any of the LSM code
    here are my personal thoughts about the issue:
    
    I think developer(s) should decide clearly if they do open source or
    closed source development. I do both kinds of software myself depending
    on client requirements and other factors. Yes, sometimes I want to keep
    my secrets. There's nothing wrong about that. But I *never* mix up
    closed and open source. Since the LGPL is somewhat in-between I
    definitely don't like it. Similar goes for BSD style licenses. It's a
    matter of principle. Therefore I never release closed source software
    for Linux. If I cannot GPL it I don't publish it at all - or use closed
    source software on Linux (if possible). I definitely do not like closed
    source kernel modules.
    
    Concerning security my requirements are far higher. While I don't have
    problems using closed source software in "normal" circumstances (I just
    don't like it), security is more important so I need access to the
    source to make my decision and to track down any problems. I do not
    trust any vendor, everyone including myself can make mistakes. Why would
    anyone keep security-related software a secret? I can think of three
    possible reasons. There might be more, please enlighten me!
    
    1) Keep your secrets!
    I do this myself sometimes if I think I shouldn't tell all my tricks.
    However, when security is concerned I think it's a very Bad Idea (tm)
    See all the various Microsoft software exploits - even if you know about
    them you cannot fix them since you haven't the source! :-((
    
    2) It needs to be secret or the security will fail
    Very, very Bad Ides (tm)! If your solution depends on a secret algorithm
    you're in deep trouble. Just go and decompile it... I think we all agree
    on this issue.
    
    3) Forced to by third-party software
    This one's the difficult one. For some software or algorithms like RSA
    you have to sign a non-disclosure agreement. It might be good to be able
    to use such third-party-software. I don't like this in security-related
    software, but if as much as possible of the module is open-sourced I can
    accept it. I doubt I'll ever use it, but I might be forced to...
    
    If I can avoid close-sourced software I'll use open-sourced
    counterparts, especially if security is concerned. I cannot trust any
    vendor getting out a patch quickly if an exploit becomes published so I
    need the source to defend myself. Using closed source software which
    uses open source software feels like stealing for me: The open source
    developer gave me free software so I should give them free software back
    in return. Lawyers might tell you otherwise (there are big differences
    between the appropriate laws in Germany and the USA, and IANAL), but
    that's the way I feel.
    
    Conclusion: I absolutely like the idea that only OSF-compliant software
    can use LSM. However I see one problem here (my point 3), and the fact
    this change (is it a change or not?) is introduced this late. I don't
    like it, but for now closed source LSM modules should be allowed. After
    further discussion this might hopefully change. But if the acceptance in
    the mainstream kernel really depends on this I'll prefer getting LSM
    into the kernel instead.
    
    Just my two Eurocents.
    Best regards,
    Martin Stricker
    -- 
    Homepage: http://www.martin-stricker.de/
    Registered Linux user #210635: http://counter.li.org/
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 : Mon Sep 24 2001 - 17:30:51 PDT