Re: Secure Computing statement of assurance

From: Ben McGinnes (bmcginnesat_private)
Date: Sat Jul 27 2002 - 04:51:50 PDT

  • Next message: Matthew Wilcox: "[PATCH] LSM file locking patch is bogus" 

    Russell Coker(russellat_private)@Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 01:35:00PM +0200:
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 12:56, Ben McGinnes wrote:
> 
> > Essentially this means that they have provided something to placate
> > us,
> 
> Who has it placated?  Certainly not me!

I meant that the intention was to placate the concerned parties
involved in SELinux development, not that that was the result (if it
was, we wouldn't be having this conversation).

> Even from a commercial point of view it's not reasonable.  If someone tried 
> to screw over one of my clients in such a fashion I'd react in the same way.

Reasonable in the sense that it keeps the options available to SCC
open.  I was essentially trying to look at the issue (and the drafting
of their statement) from the point of view of their legal department.

> I haven't seen any evidence of honest attempts to resolve the issue from SCC.

Which speaks volumes.


Regards,
Ben
    _______________________________________________ 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 : Sat Jul 27 2002 - 17:52:36 PDT