Then, not supporting loadable modules *is* more secure. By not
supporting them, you are decreasing the ease in which the kernel can be
modified. There are fewer people who can "fiddle with memory by hand"
than there are that can insert a loadable module... a lot fewer, don't
you agree?
On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 09:58, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Richard B. Tilley (Brad) wrote:
> > Could you explain this in more detail? It seems to me that if the kernel
> > does not support loadable modules that it would be inherently more
> > secure because it could not be dynamically modified with a module. How
> > is my understanding of this wrong?
>
> You can fiddle with kernel memory by hand and insert code and modules.
> There are a couple of tools available to do that for you, google can
> probably find them for you.
>
> Wichert.
>
> --
> Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net> http://www.wiggy.net/
> A random hacker
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 31 2003 - 22:00:19 EST