Re: Linux kernel source archive vulnerable

["Gerald (Jerry) Carter" <jerry () samba org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hadmut Danisch wrote:

> Really? Both means to do what is standing in 
> the Makefile.  Both is executing the Makefile.

That's like saying ping should run as root
since it reads /etc/hosts.

> If you cannot trust the kernel source to compile 
> it as root, how could you run it with root permissions
> (i.e. use it as a kernel)?

Your logic is false here.  If the kernel maintainers
and developers say don't compile as root and you
do it anyways, That's your choice.  But it is not the
same thing as running the kernel.  You may disagree but
deliberately choosing not to follow the advice of
the maintainer of a software package does not logically
follow from your statement above.

But again, this is a philosophical issue and now a
technical one.  Like I said before, if you want to change
policy, take it up on lkml.  Discussing it here will
provide little if any benefit in changing how kernels
are distributed from kernel.org.

Now if you want to talk about Samba.... :-)




cheers, jerry
=====================================================================
Samba                                    ------- http://www.samba.org
Centeris                         -----------  http://www.centeris.com
"What man is a man who does not make the world better?"      --Balian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFAbiIIR7qMdg1EfYRAv3EAJ9FczjBUYULvIlAYelnrbJpKvk4lACfSHnu
2N1GtBaNNHlM5c+05rXc/ZU=
=zlWk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/