On 7 Nov 2001, paul wrote: > I might not've noticed whether this has been mentioned on the > list before, but FYI, just saw this on linuxtoday: > > http://www.intersectalliance.com/projects/Snare/index.html > > Paul While I have no specific opinion on the project referenced, I have looked at the site (patience, it's somewhat slow, at least from here) and think it MAY have some merit toward justification of LSM not tackling audit at this time. It seems aimed at a different security interest than LSM, at least in "stage I". My only question is: is the access-restriction function provided by LSM compatible with the the audit/access-control functions of the project referenced? Has anybody on this list done an evaluation, and, might the two be reduced(optimized) in some cases to allow interoperability, if necessary? LSM *rocks*, for what it does! (TM) (Political Statement) Sincerely, 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 : Wed Nov 07 2001 - 11:51:51 PST