On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 03:14:33PM +0800, Cliffe wrote: > Defense in depth has long been recognised as an important secure design > principle. Security is best achieved using a layered approach. "Layered approach" is not a magic incantation to excuse any bit of snake oil. Homeopathic remedies might not harm (pure water is pure water), but that's not an excuse for quackery. And frankly, most of the "security improvement" crowd sound exactly like woo-peddlers. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
- Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion... Rob Meijer
- Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conve... Crispin Cowan
- Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM c... Peter Dolding
- Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static... Cliffe
- Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not ... Al Viro
- Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*,... Cliffe
- Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*,... Crispin Cowan
- Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modul... Casey Schaufler
- Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not ... Simon Arlott
- Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*,... Crispin Cowan
- Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modul... Cliffe
- Re: Defense in depth: LSM *m... Peter Dolding
- Re: Defense in depth: LSM *m... Cliffe
- Re: Defense in depth: LSM *m... Casey Schaufler
- Re: Defense in depth: LSM *m... Tetsuo Handa
