Subject: Re: Integrating securelevel and kauth(9) To: None <>
From: Elad Efrat <> List: tech-kern Date: 03/25/2006 01:58:30
wrote:  > Indeed, and this touches on an important point often
overlooked by > proposers of change: namely, the *confidence* in
a given implementation. > Years-old implementations like
securelevel many not be shiny or sexy; > but because they _are_
years-old, they've had many eyes look over > them.  Several bugs
have been identified and fixed.  Both the > technique and the
implemntation is well-understood in the wider > security
community (e.g., by third-party security labs certifying > for
governmnet use.)  > The upshot is that, for people who rely on
existing security-releated > features to meet those levels of
confidence, *NO* new feature is an > actual substitute for the
existing features. By definition, the > ``new'' feature is not a
substitute for the ``old'' feature until the > new-ness has worn
off, the "new"code has become well reviewed, > well-understood,
and widely-trusted.  W