David Wheeler wrote:
> However, before doing so, I want to hear any comments.
> If people often want to mix in the capability module with another
> secondary module when they have a single child,
Single child; hmmm. Does that mean "stacker + one functional module"? Or
"stacker + capabilities + one other module"? I expect the common cases
to be:
1. capabilities only: oblivious users who don't do anything to
enhance kernel security, and just load up the defaults.
2. capabilities + OWLSM: nearly oblivious users who want to just add
the "zero management" security of OWLSM.
3. capabilities + OWLSM + MAC: where "MAC" is one of SELinux, LIDS,
DTE, or SubDomain, etc. Users taking active steps to enhance
security with MAC.
4. OWLSM + MAC: as above, but people who think capabilities suck :-)
5. MAC only: as above, but think that OWLSM sucks too.
In the cases where there is only one functional module, we can skip
stacker. There are two cases with two modules (#2 and #4) and only one
of them involves capabilities.
Speak up if you think I've omitted an important case.
WireX will probably go with #3 or #4, plus some additional modules of
our own. Get your own magic 8 ball to predict the order of popularity :-)
Crispin
--
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist, WireX http://wirex.com/~crispin/
Security Hardened Linux Distribution: http://immunix.org
Available for purchase: http://wirex.com/Products/Immunix/purchase.html
Just say ".Nyet"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Dec 24 2002 - 19:41:36 PST