-- Vandoorselaere Yoann wrote:
> Agree,
> but executable stack will, *in all case* give a false sence of security.
--- Just had to comment on this "false sense" stuff. Anything that makes it more difficult for someone to break in "raises" security. There isn't a binary value of security where a system goes from "unsecure" to "secure". It is a continuum of increasing security. Having a non executable stack is like hiding the shadow file. The don't make your system secure, but both make it more difficult for certain types of hacks to occur. Like cryptography -- it's not 100% secure -- it just delays an attacker (hopefully for long enough that it's not worth it to the attacker). But given the possibilities of quantum computers, today's key's will seem like yesturday's 32-bit keys. Nano-computers w/more power than today's fastest. Hello Borg, here we come. We better hope we have alot more security on the internet before then...:-) -l -- Linda A Walsh | Trust Technology, Core Linux, SGI law@sgi.com | Voice: (650) 933-5338- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 23 2000 - 21:00:13 EST