On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 10:14:39AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > > Greg KH wrote: > > > > > No we don't need any such "uniform standard". > > > > > > You need a standard for _your_ user applications to determine if _your_ > > > security module is currently loaded. And since you wrote both of them, > > > and control both of them, you're set. > > > > Actually, I would like to offer multiple policies to my > > customers, perhaps even SELinux as well as CAPP (C2) and > > LSPP (B1) to augment the "traditional" policy. I want one > > version of ls, login (PAM modules, actually), su, ps, etc which > > enforce and/or report based on the policy installed. > > > > Yes, I can do that in my own, special private copy of ls.c, > > but I'd rather share it with the world. > > Great! Get together with those other projects and coordinate things. > But don't put a burden on others who don't want to work with anyone else > (probably the majority). I agree. I was denied "bisquits" for any idea that merged modules that were not of the same "family"... this falls in the same "no-biscuit zone". > > greg k-h > J. Melvin Jones |>------------------------------------------------------ || J. MELVIN JONES jmjonesat_private |>------------------------------------------------------ || Microcomputer Systems Consultant || Software Developer || Web Site Design, Hosting, and Administration || Network and Systems Administration |>------------------------------------------------------ || http://www.jmjones.com/ |>------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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 : Tue Aug 14 2001 - 17:07:43 PDT