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/