, 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)

The trick with the closed source development model is that we don't know what little vulns are waiting in the XP kernel. We simply don't have the same level of visibility which would result in groups like the grsecurity and PaX folks proactively finding vulns, reporting them to the vendor, and going for full disclosure. Meanwhile, the fact remains that the Linux kernel does not have a dedicated maintainer in charge of security. That was the thrust of the article. Comparing that to Windows, where a single vendor has end to end responsibility, is unfair at best.
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/296/30334#30334