Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to staticinterface)

[david]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Alan Cox wrote:

> > > There is a ton of evidence both in computing and outside of it which
> > > shows that poor security can be very much worse than no security at all.
> >
> > (So, I take it that you *don't* lock your bike up, as poor security is
> > worse than none?)
>
> On the contrary because I know it is not secure I would
>
> a) Insure it

and the unsurance company would have a clause in the policy that wouldn't 
cover you unless you used a lock, becouse they recognise that while it 
wouldn't stop everyone there is a large group of potential thieves that it 
would stop.

> b) Not waste vast amounts of money on a useless expensive lock

who said the lock was expensive? and while you are not willing to spend 
money on a lock you are willing to spend (much more) money on an insurance 
policy.

David Lang

> c) Make sure the bike looked not worth stealing
> d) Take the saddle with me
>
> (or the software versions of that
>
> a) Keep backups
> b) Not waste vast amounts of money on bogus security software
> c) Keep the system looking uninteresting
> d) Encrypt the data)
>
> > 'Inappropriate risks' nowadays is surfing the web and opening up mail
> > attachments that claim to be movies of dancing bears. I'd argue that
> > users have a reasonable expectation that these are things that should
> > 'just work,' and be safe, much as normal humans have an expectation
> > that their car isn't going to explode when they turn the ignition.
>
> Yes and its very clear from the things said by politicians that if the
> computer software people don't do this soon, the legislators will make
> very sure they do by stripping away all the techniques used to hide from
> liability for failure.
>
> > Perfect is the enemy of good, or words to that effect, right? My point
> > is that requiring perfection out of a security framework is a bar
> > that's going to be awfully difficult to reach (and when it supposedly
> > has been achieved, as in SELinux, mere mortals find it too troublesome
> > to run with as it's far too difficult to configure). Security can and
> > should be done in layers, and what one may miss, another may catch.
>
> Absolutely - but those layers should do whatever they do *right* and
> really do it, whether they are complex whole system controls like SELinux
> or simple network security tools.
>
> Alan
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/