[Cdn-DMCA] RE: canada-dmca-opponents-digest V1 #172
aland at ox.org
Mon Jul 29 13:18:05 EDT 2002
Steve Tibbett <stevex at jflinc.com> wrote:
> Linux has no protection against someone installing a rogue kernel driver
> that steals "secret" data.
It's called a proper security implementation.
As for "protecting" any "secret" data which is run on a machine you
don't own, and don't control... it's a really dumb idea. See comments
by Bruce Schneier about these issues. It's practically impossible to
implement in reality.
> TCPA is a different beast from securing an OS against rogue users -
> it's securing a platform against rogue Software (rogue being
> determined by the platform). (Whether you agree with it or
> not.. It's a level of protection that Linux can't supply).
It's an idea which people have tried to implement before, and which
Once you give someone access to ALL software and hardware involved
in a security system, it's almost trivial for them to figure out how
to break it. After all, there are millions of people who can devote
tens of millions of hours to cracking the security. No one can afford
to create systems immune to that kind of threat.
The government comes close, and only because it can enact
non-technical measures (legislation, cops, guns) to stop technical
cracks of security systems.
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.flora.org/dmca/
More information about the Discuss