LA Walsh wrote: > LSM is a collection of hack & hooks thrown together in an ad-hoc >manner to support those people who were able to lobby their specific >security policies. Oh really? Lobbying, eh? Frankly, that sounds pretty hard to believe. I'd like to think that anyone making allegations like this would back up their claims with pretty solid evidence and examples. Or were you hoping to push us into re-visiting the auditing vs. access control debate? There are good reasons that LSM targets only access control and not auditing. This decision was not due to some backdoor, "old boy" lobbying cabal; it was based on sound reasons. We've had this argument before, and achieved rough consensus on the list. I understand you're disappointed about which way the decision went, but if that's what's driving your allegations about "lobbying", I'm not sure why you'd choose this way to bring the auditing issue up again. Campaigning against LSM isn't going to improve security for Linux, and it's sure not going to make it any easier to get auditing into the Linux kernel for the foreseeable future. (And if you think we wouldn't be getting these complaints about LSM from Linux developers if LSM had espoused auditing, think again -- instead, we'd be getting ten times as many complaints.) _______________________________________________ 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 : Sun Feb 09 2003 - 20:53:35 PST