MESSAGE
| DATE | 2005-06-07 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Device Drivers Filled With Flaws, Threaten
|
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 13:59, Billy wrote:
> Ruben Safir wrote:
> > If the core Kernel is secure, how are they going to gain access to the
> > device drivers.
>
> They who?
Malevolent code writers
> Which Kernel?
GNU/Linux code 2.6.x
> What drivers?
>
Any of them. Access is regulated from the Kernel
Ruben
>
>
> > Ruben
> > On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 11:40, Billy wrote:
> >
> >>Ruben Safir wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 17:03, Inker, Evan wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>OK, Please can someone explain why Novell's Director of Software Engineering
> >>>>make the following statement publicly:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Because he opposes the move into the GNU/Linux sphere. It seems pretty
> >>>obvious. MS drivers secure? Please. Linux drivers not secure and poor
> >>>quality, please don't make me sick. The pool of programmers in both
> >>>cases largely suck, but I'd rather trust Donald Beckers Eth0 drivers to
> >>>the paid minions of 3Comm land any day.
> >>
> >>I'd say that MOST of my WinXP drivers have not been verified by MSFT QA.
> >>XP gives me a warning about the driver, and I still NEED the driver,
> >>so I click "OK" and that's the end of it.
> >>
> >>
> >>>And you know what, how do you audit code that is closed like the moronic
> >>>patent protected NVideo systems.
> >>
> >>I guess you don't. So the free drivers have been subject to analysis
> >>which the nonfree drivers have not been subject to. To say the free
> >>drivers are less secure is therefore disingenuous. We can't simply
> >>compare MSFT's QA lab tests to the automated free driver security audit
> >>and expect to draw meaningful conclusions.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Maybe Billy can shed light on this.
> >>
> >>Maybe.
> >
> >
|
|
