>>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 04:08:05 +0200, "A. Pagaltzis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> 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
