[thanks for the anonymous guy pointing to this thread/discussion]

1. there're more issues with LSM than you answered, and those you answered prove the politics at play. SELinux wasn't rejected due to its invasiveness (LSM is nothing less invasive than SELinux was/is, yet it's 'in' now), it was rejected because Linus didn't want to play outright politics and favour a particular access control implementation (rightly so). we know now that that's what exactly happened, through clever maneuvers and social engineering.

2. i can't speak for Brad (grsec dev), but i can state with certainity that i have never ever been contacted (let alone requested/instructed) by any kernel dev regarding the inclusion of PaX in mainline - kinda makes it hard to follow/ignore such, don't you think? one would think that if there was a serious consideration of such inclusion, i would have learned about it eventually... but i never did. this is not to imply that i'd agree to such a move, just stating that your accusing me of not playing by the rules is bullshit - there was never such a request.

3. is this really the best place for spreading FUD about us? how about contacting us directly for some meaningful discussion?

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/308/31075#31075