[Dailydave] In defense of Mandatory Access Control, was Re: No more Novell AppArmor?

[pageexec at freemail.hu]

On 26 Mar 2009 at 16:28, Travis wrote:

[SEalotry deleted]
 
> I realize I've written quite a bit about this, but after seeing
> security experts discussing minutia of reverse-engineering and address
> space layout randomization and W^X and NX and stackguard and so on,
> I'm a bit surprised about seeing so many people being snarky about
> such a powerful security technology.  I guess I'll just have to chalk
> it up to cynicism about any new protective technologies; it's cool to
> be dismissive and aloof.  If you can find major areas it doesn't
> cover, you can call it ineffective.

do 'exploitable kernel bugs' count?