Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] SLIM - flaw or feature?

From: Bob Oh (contextswitch@private)
Date: Mon Nov 28 2005 - 08:01:49 PST

Previous message: Rafael Konrath: "Hello!"
In reply to: Stephen Smalley: "Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] SLIM"
Next in thread: Tim Fraser: "Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] SLIM - flaw or feature?"
Next in thread: Stephen Smalley: "Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] SLIM"
Reply: Tim Fraser: "Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] SLIM - flaw or feature?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This system appears to be flawed. 
  
        For example... there seems to be -no-  real MAC.. Untrusted user A can access untrusted user B files and  trusted user A can access trusted user B files if they are able to  overcome the discretionary access controls (file perms... become  root... like this never happens :) )..  There seems to be  absoutely -no- user-level partitioning.. All like security levels  depend on DAC to provide access control and individual users can  relinquish access to other users.....this is -not- MAC.. 
  
Bob
  
  
  


		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Personals
 Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
Lot's of someone's, actually. Yahoo! Personals

Previous message: Rafael Konrath: "Hello!"
In reply to: Stephen Smalley: "Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] SLIM"
Next in thread: Tim Fraser: "Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] SLIM - flaw or feature?"
Next in thread: Stephen Smalley: "Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] SLIM"
Reply: Tim Fraser: "Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] SLIM - flaw or feature?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Mon Nov 28 2005 - 11:54:12 PST