, 2005-02-02
Recent events have shown that the way security in the Linux kernel is handled is broken, and it needs to be fixed right now.
Expand all |
Post comment
Linux Kernel Security is Lacking
2005-02-02
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Linux Kernel Security is Lacking
2005-02-04
Anonymous (5 replies)
Anonymous (5 replies)
"The numbers" and (deliberate?) failure to undestand what linux is
2005-02-07
RedHat not Linux User. (1 replies)
RedHat not Linux User. (1 replies)
Re: The "numbers" and (deliberate?) failure to undestand what linux is
2005-02-07
Jason V. Miller (Author) (1 replies)
Jason V. Miller (Author) (1 replies)
Linux Kernel Security is Lacking
2005-02-03
Todd Knarr (1 replies)
Todd Knarr (1 replies)
Linux Kernel Security is Lacking
2005-02-04
Jason V. Miller (Author) (1 replies)
Jason V. Miller (Author) (1 replies)
Linux Kernel Security is Lacking
2005-02-05
Todd Knarr (1 replies)
Todd Knarr (1 replies)
Linux Kernel Security is Lacking
2005-02-09
Joe Borsits (1 replies)
Joe Borsits (1 replies)
Linux Kernel Security is Lacking
2005-02-03
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
I eagerly await...
2005-02-03
Anonymous (5 replies)
Anonymous (5 replies)
So, what now about kernel security?
2005-02-03
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
flamer ! is not having an hidden mailing = we do'n't care about security
2005-02-04
Alban Browaeys (1 replies)
Alban Browaeys (1 replies)
flamer ! is not having an hidden mailing = we do'n't care about security
2005-02-04
Jason V. Miller (Author)
Jason V. Miller (Author)

Read this stuff:
http://www.schneier.com/book-sandl.html
http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1267
http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/
http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/selinux-faq-fc3/
http://www.grsecurity.net/lsm.php
--- this collective debate (open) is far more result based (vs the Microsoft solution where everything is hidden from view, and if their marketing could, would sweep under the carpet. Only by such articles and debate can we move forward. The article(s) are worth reading.
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/296/30327#30327