Stephen Smalley wrote: > As I've said, there is no new evidence here. And as far as I know, > only SGI is unhappy about the status quo ... While statements like this go a long ways toward making me feel special, they don't address the issues. I understand that SELinux is happy with LSM as it is today. SGI is not. We've raised several issues, including Audit (which has been defered) alternative DAC mechanisms, and MAC. No one will be able to do any of these things* with the current scheme. We just happen to be the first ones here, so we're the ones pointing out the shortfalls. I understand that there is a set of schemes that can use LSM as it is now, and that's great. However, the fact that there are others, which have been identified and the LSM cannot address deserves better than the sort of attention it's received. -- * OKay, SElinux can do everything. I mean a native implementation which can satisfy and be evaluated at LSPP. 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 : Fri Aug 03 2001 - 07:40:33 PDT