Re: The Demise of Simple Assurance?

From: richard offer (offerat_private)
Date: Wed Aug 01 2001 - 07:14:33 PDT

  • Next message: Stephen Smalley: "RE: FW: Hooks for MAC (updated)"

    * frm crispinat_private "07/31/01 20:25:12 -0700" | sed '1,$s/^/* /'
    * Valdis.Kletnieksat_private wrote:
    *> 2) Should the "somebody" be "us" as part of a 'stage 2' effort?
    * Here I'm more vehement:  No, I'd really rather that didn't happen.  If we
    * put this into the stage 2 plans (or even propse a "stage 3") and the main
    * kernel people hear about it, they're likely to be so horrified that stage
    * 1 may get stonewalled.
    I agree with Crispin. I don't want to risk audit for this even if I believe
    that its the right thing to do. Of course this has more chance of being
    accepted than audit :-(
    However, taking one step back, its probably something that somebody should
    be thinking about for the Linux 3.0 timeframe.
    * Crispin
    Richard Offer                     Technical Lead, Trust Technology, SGI
    "Specialization is for insects"
    linux-security-module mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Aug 01 2001 - 07:15:32 PDT