, 2003-10-15
The open-source community should abandon its piecemeal approach to securing Linux-- and soon.
Expand all |
Post comment
Looking like donkey's
2003-10-16
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
Looking like donkey's
2003-10-16
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
New Editorial Direction for SF?
2003-10-16
Al Franken (1 replies)
Al Franken (1 replies)
New Editorial Direction for SF?
2003-10-16
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
Evolution, a necessary evil
2003-10-16
Axe-2-Grind (1 replies)
Axe-2-Grind (1 replies)
Evolution, a necessary evil
2003-10-17
Faust (1 replies)
Faust (1 replies)
R u sure u r not a donkey yourself?
2003-10-20
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
R u sure u r not a donkey yourself?
2003-10-20
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
R u sure u r not a donkey yourself?
2003-10-20
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
R u sure u r not a donkey yourself?
2003-10-20
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Wil-E-Coyote bridge design
2003-10-21
DWilliams (1 replies)
DWilliams (1 replies)

Any decent sysadmin verifies the digital signature of a piece of open source code when they download it, making an implicit trust decision about the developer in the process. Digitally signed code can still have back doors! If you're concerned about maintaining integrity, compile your code on a highly secure dev box, move it into production via read-only media, then add it to your Tripwire baseline.
Your point about unsigned binaries is misconceived.
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/191/23189#23189