Tim Smith wrote:
In article <f49v43$goc$01$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Peter Kohlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
I spotted that one paragraph a few months ago. Prior to that, people would
argue that NSA's involvement in SELinux imposes no dangers because the
code is out there to view and analyse. But assembly? I mean, come on...
Yes. Where is the problem?
Assembly code is about as easy/difficult to read as C-code
Granted, there are not as many people who /can/ read it, compared to C/C++
But that does not mean that there are none
SELinux rules aren't written in assembly language. Some writers have
used a comparison to assembly language because SELinux rules operate at
a low level. It might take many rules to express a policy that you
could verbalize in a short sentence or two.
Crips, timmy trying to read between the lines again. Go read it again,
you twerp.
Perhaps a better comparison would be ... for you to butt out and shut up.
There... how's that for post editing, timmy boi?
You deserved this one.
Who are they kidding? From the land where wiretapping is as acceptable as
opening one's private snail mail...
That's an amusing complaint coming from a Brit.
And an amusing comments from trailer trash such as you.
At least over here we
don't have cameras all over the place watching our every move outside.
Don't worry timmy, Kitsap county will soon have a camera watching you
outside your trailer.
|
|
