Modularisation

[Gregory Nowak]

Uhmm. How does patching a kernel with speakup pose
a security risk?
Greg


On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 08:52:06AM +0100, Saqib Shaikh wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> While I think that it is good that parts of Speakup has been included in the kernel, I would still like to see Speakup be a kernel module so that it can be added/removed at will.  What do people think of this?
> 
> Secondly, I personally don't like the fact that one must change the keymaps to use Speakup.  Could Speakup be changed so that it monitors all keypresses, and if it wants to deal with them it does so and then all other keys are passed through?  This would, in my opinion, be a far better solution.
> 
> Finally I would like to raise the issue of security.  Many of my friends at universities in the UK use Emacspeak rather than Speakup purely because our universities consider patching every kernel both a security risk and a hastle.  On the security side I also know of at least one distribution that refuses to include Speakup because of it being a security risk.
> 
> Any comments welcome.  If there's anything I can do to help rectify the possible flaws above let me know.
> 
> Saqib
>