| |||||||||||||
Kernel vulnerabilities: old or new?Kernel vulnerabilities: old or new?Posted Oct 20, 2010 8:28 UTC (Wed) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183)In reply to: Kernel vulnerabilities: old or new? by spender Parent article: Kernel vulnerabilities: old or new?
Brad, ever thought of submitting a couple of guest articles to the security section of LWN?
(Log in to post comments)
Kernel vulnerabilities: old or new? Posted Oct 20, 2010 17:16 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
Agreed. They might be impassioned and even inflammatory, but I bet they'd be awesome reading.
Kernel vulnerabilities: old or new? Posted Oct 21, 2010 12:29 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Strongly agreed. The more people learn about how to apply Spengler-style paranoia to the code they themselves write, the better our security gets.
Spender writing for LWN.net Posted Oct 22, 2010 19:57 UTC (Fri) by promotion-account (guest, #70778) [Link]
Completely agree. All these released exploits (and the heated discussions about them) made me think more seriously about security of the code I write.
Kernel vulnerabilities: old or new? Posted Oct 25, 2010 9:01 UTC (Mon) by dany (guest, #18902) [Link]
Yes, Brad's own security articles would be for LWN fresh water (or complete shock therapy :)
Rate of introduction vs removal Posted Oct 25, 2010 21:28 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] For starters, how about concocting a different metric which shows what our esteemed editor was trying to discover here: what is the rate of introduction and removal of security holes in the kernel. His own approach for this article was arguably thin. I am sure spender must have a couple of ideas.
|
|||||||||||||