"KRAMER,STEVEN (HP-USA,ex1)" wrote: > Exactly. The SGI folks appear to be trying to play by the "rules of > the game", vague as they may be. Thanks. We try. > On the one hand, they are told to > not pollute phase 1 with audit and wait for phase 2, and on the other > hand they are being told that phase 2 is nowhere near a certainty. Well, we ARE doing an audit implementation, that's not an uncertainty. The question is if LSM will be sufficient for it. If it isn't, we're back to square one, with multiple conflicting implementations of security facilities competing for approval for inclusion in the official tree. We don't want that. It's reasonably clear that conflicts need to be resolved to mutual dissatisfaction within LSM before we can stand united before the larger community. The larger community is going to hit us with both barrels. It's been that way since I started putting these features into U2X back in 1987. We have to be strong and together, or we're toast, lightly spread with peach compote. > Does anyone know the chances of a phase 2? We will do it, if audit isn't in Phase 1. We have to, our market (honking big compute boxes, etc) depends on it. It's the reason we're here. Working together to make Linux better. -- Casey Schaufler Manager, Trust Technology, SGI caseyat_private voice: 650.933.1634 casey_pat_private Pager: 888.220.0607 _______________________________________________ linux-security-module mailing list linux-security-moduleat_private http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jul 25 2001 - 09:32:35 PDT