Vulnerability Development mailing list archives
Re: Ports 0-1023?
From: Bruno Morisson <morisson () genhex org>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 00:18:35 +0000
It's still in *very* early development, but yes, I'm planning also interfacing with LSM. Basically, one of the goals is to be a kernel module and not a patch, and for the time being, only interfacing with LSM requires that the kernel is patched with LSM, so although it would be a module, to use it you would have to patch the kernel :-). regards, Bruno Morisson <morisson () genhex org> On Sunday 07 July 2002 23:41, Brian Hatch wrote:
Would you consider building the next version to interface with LSM instead of a straight kernel patch? -- Brian Hatch Each generation has Systems and it's signaure disease. Security Engineer The Black Plague. http://www.ifokr.org/bri/ Cholera. Ebola. AIDS. Windows 2000. Every message PGP signed
Current thread:
- Ports 0-1023? Blue Boar (Jul 04)
- Re: Ports 0-1023? Kurt Seifried (Jul 04)
- Re: Ports 0-1023? Charles 'core' Stevenson (Jul 04)
- Re: Ports 0-1023? Thomas Cannon (Jul 04)
- Re: Ports 0-1023? Charles 'core' Stevenson (Jul 05)
- Re: Ports 0-1023? Brian Hatch (Jul 05)
- Re: Ports 0-1023? Kevin Easton (Jul 06)
- Re: Ports 0-1023? Charles 'core' Stevenson (Jul 06)
- Re: Ports 0-1023? Bruno Morisson (Jul 07)
- Re: Ports 0-1023? Brian Hatch (Jul 08)
- Re: Ports 0-1023? Bruno Morisson (Jul 08)
- Re: Ports 0-1023? Charles 'core' Stevenson (Jul 04)
- Re: Ports 0-1023? Kurt Seifried (Jul 04)
- Re: Ports 0-1023? Michal Zalewski (Jul 04)
- Re: Ports 0-1023? Kent Crispin (Jul 04)
- RE: Ports 0-1023? Michal Zalewski (Jul 04)