jmjonesat_private wrote: > 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". I have made (as yet unanswered) inquiries. > 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? I'll pass on information should I receive any. > LSM *rocks*, for what it does! (TM) (Political Statement) Sure, but so does Abba. (Political Retort. Meant in fun. Abba is a Swedish vocal group from the disco era) -- 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 Nov 07 2001 - 13:29:36 PST