diff for duplicates of <alpine.LFD.2.20.1711212102370.6690@localhost> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index e259608..d8c1a75 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -7,9 +7,9 @@ On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > LSMs are responsible to enforce a security policy at run-time, > > > > while IMA/EVM protect data and metadata against offline attacks. > > > -> > > In my view, IMA can also protect against making an online attack +> > > In my view, IMA can also protect against making an online attack? > > > persistent across boots, and that would be the most compelling use of -> > > it for many general purpose applications. +> > > it?for many general purpose applications. > > > > I do not quite buy that interpretation. If the online attack succeeds > > in bypassing the run-time checks, for example with a full root exploit, @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > changes as during an offline attack. > > In the face of a full root exploit, there is not much that one can do, -> "other" than to detect it. This is why remote attestation is so +> "other" than to detect it. ?This is why remote attestation is so > important. Right, although the consensus seems to be that RA is essential rather than diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index c409d3f..07bff80 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -11,16 +11,10 @@ "ref\0alpine.LFD.2.20.1711200746120.25470@localhost\0" "ref\01511173252.5979.45.camel@intel.com\0" "ref\01511189976.4729.110.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com\0" - "From\0James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>\0" - "Subject\0Re: IMA appraisal master plan?\0" + "From\0james.l.morris@oracle.com (James Morris)\0" + "Subject\0IMA appraisal master plan?\0" "Date\0Tue, 21 Nov 2017 21:05:19 +1100 (AEDT)\0" - "To\0Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>\0" - "Cc\0Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>" - Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com> - Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com> - linux-integrity <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org> - linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org> - " Silviu Vlasceanu <silviu.vlasceanu@huawei.com>\0" + "To\0linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org\0" "\00:1\0" "b\0" "On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, Mimi Zohar wrote:\n" @@ -32,9 +26,9 @@ "> > > > LSMs are responsible to enforce a security policy at run-time,\n" "> > > > while IMA/EVM protect data and metadata against offline attacks.\n" "> > > \n" - "> > > In my view, IMA can also protect against making an online attack \n" + "> > > In my view, IMA can also protect against making an online attack?\n" "> > > persistent across boots, and that would be the most compelling use of\n" - "> > > it for many general purpose applications.\n" + "> > > it?for many general purpose applications.\n" "> > \n" "> > I do not quite buy that interpretation. If the online attack succeeds\n" "> > in bypassing the run-time checks, for example with a full root exploit,\n" @@ -42,7 +36,7 @@ "> > changes as during an offline attack.\n" "> \n" "> In the face of a full root exploit, there is not much that one can do,\n" - "> \"other\" than to detect it. This is why remote attestation is so\n" + "> \"other\" than to detect it. ?This is why remote attestation is so\n" "> important.\n" "\n" "Right, although the consensus seems to be that RA is essential rather than \n" @@ -53,4 +47,4 @@ "James Morris\n" <james.l.morris@oracle.com> -ad4f92d2aeb38fd853366ccf0c9501fb227157f128392eb9a8c6cee05cb3d67a +2204670d79e5a77460d6edfb7e821c3f0b924cdcb713be2889ae59f9422857db
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.