>>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 04:08:05 +0200, "A. Pagaltzis" <pagaltzis@xxxxxx>
>>>>> said:
> I’ll assume you didn’t actually mean it the way it came out; that
> you were actually complaining about the tools. I agree that
> Module::Signature falls far short of doing an adequate job; no
> argument from me about that. But I think so not because it
> decreases utility but because it doesn’t actually increase
> security. When it decreases utility, it’s just because it fails
> to work, not because in exchange for security.
> If I could trade some utility for an actual increase in security,
> I would.
I'll assume you didn’t actually mean it the way it came out;) that you
were actually complaining that M:S falls short because our security
model needs *further* action not because M:S has deficiencies. If M:S
has deficiencies, maybe we should address them now.
--
andreas
|
