Messages in this thread | | | From | "Stephen C. Tweedie" <> | Date | Tue, 7 Dec 1999 11:25:53 +0000 (GMT) | Subject | Re: malware defense |
| |
Hi,
On Mon, 6 Dec 1999 10:23:36 -0000, "Daniel J Blueman" <daniel.j.blueman@stud.umist.ac.uk> said:
> I think that one good partial solution to security with modules anyway could > be:
> - extending the module (/binary?) format in 2.4/2.5 to include digital > signatures ... > I think this is a step in the right direction. Really, it shouldn't be hard > to implement, apart from encryption exporting
Encryption != authentication. As long as the module plaintext isn't encrypted, I wouldn't have thought there would be any problems with adding signatures.
--Stephen
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |