Digitally Signed Binaries w/ Kernel support, etc.
torfinn.ingolfsen at broadpark.no
Thu Apr 3 15:01:16 UTC 2008
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 04:12:27 -0700
David Schwartz <davids at webmaster.com> wrote:
> He would face a chicken and egg problem. To make a signed executable
> to set his key to be accepted, he would need his key to already be
Uhm, if the attacker managed to get a hole in the sustem and get
in, he / she will surely manage to get the necessary tools (a signed
binrary) onto the system. As an added bonus, this is a binary he
created himself, so it works with his key.
> However, I agree that this is kind of pointless. It's like adding
> extra locks to the back door when the front door is just as open.
> Once someone gets root, odds are they can exploit an executable --
> even if it's signed -- using the same process they used to get root
> in the first place.
Exactly. PLease use the tools that are already available (securelevel
in this case) before thinking up new ones that FreeBSD might or might
Just my 0.2 eurocents.
More information about the freebsd-stable