--- [email protected] wrote:
> Ok, so to be clear, any module which does not
> directly impose some form
> of access control is not eligible for an LSM?
In particular, an additional access control.
LSM is not for changing the existing policy,
it is for imposing additional policy.
You could, of course, add code to act on the
integrity measurements you've made, in which
case you could be in conformance with the
stated eligibilty requirements.
> (in that case that clearly settles the issue)
It sure took the wind out of the sails for the
SGI audit implementation.
Casey Schaufler
[email protected]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
