Re: [stable] Linux 2.6.25.10

[Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>]

Tiago Assumpcao wrote:
> Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> Ted Tso, Stephen Smalley and I are all recognized as security experts
>> and we can't even agree on whether sockets are objects or not, much
>> less what constitutes a security bug and even less what is likely to
>> be a security bug. Goodness, there are some of us who would argue
>> that since DNS is itself a security bug it is just not possible for
>> DNS to have a security bug, as an example.
>>
>>> In most cases, they are easy to spot.
>>
>> Err, no, in the kernel environment a real security flaw is likely to
>> be pretty subtle.
>
> You do not hesitate in categorizing yourself as something as obscure 
> as... what's that term again? "Expert".

Actually, I always hesitate before calling myself an expert,
in spite of the credentials I have to back the title. Too
many people seem to think that if you disagree with their
point of view you can't know what you're talking about.

> But then you fail on basic pragmatism when attempting to define what, 
> nearly always, is a true or false question?

HeeHeeHee. Security questions are almost never true or false,
black or white, on or off. SPAM is *the* major computer security
issue and it has nothing at all to do with computers or security.
Is a use of strcpy() a security vulnerability? Sure it can be,
but in reality it almost never is, but the hysteria associated
with buffer overruns gave it a bad oder.

> Jeez ;)

It's not so bad. We'll be OK. Really.