[linux-elitists] What do you want in your kernel today?

Aaron Lehmann aaronl@vitelus.com
Mon Apr 16 19:04:27 PDT 2001


On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 11:54:57AM -0700, Don Marti forwarded:
> Perhaps in the 
> future the Linux community will define a standard interface for this, 
> possibly taking advantage of some of the work we did.

Eat flaming death.

> Instead, the code is placed in a 
> separate, binary-only, kernel driver. While this provides adequate 
> protection

I am disturbed by how people view binary code as secure. Have these
people ever heard of disassemblers? Look at Cyber Patrol, Xing's DVD
player, or just about any copy-protected software made in the 80's or
90's. Just because most programmers are ignorant twits who never touch
native code doesn't mean that the code is secure. All compilation does
is obfuscate the code, and anyone trained or experienced in that form
of obfuscated code can understand what it does and even change the
code. I could change instructions verifying my "permission" to do xyz
to no-ops assuming if this software was running on my machine. All
the proprietary software vendors learned it, some the hard way. That's
why we don't see much dongle-"protected" or node-locked copy protected
software. All this proves is that the MPAA is a consortium of arrogant
imbeciles who haven't learned from the industry's historic mistakes.

Binary-only software: combining the efficiency of C with the portability
of assembler.

-- 
aaronl -- who runs some kilobuck proprietary software locked to the
output of uname() -- laughable. I guess those folks didn't learn either.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://allium.zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/attachments/20010416/e73ca368/attachment.pgp 


More information about the linux-elitists mailing list