On 4/19/06, Stephen Smalley <[email protected]> wrote:
> BTW, since you point to LOMAC as evidence, can you point to an actual
> user community that uses LOMAC?
EVM & SLIM are part of IBM's internal supported Linux desktop, so
there are quite a few users.
> My concerns with low water mark were noted in
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-security-module&m=113232319627338&w=2
...
And Tim Fraser's and Dave Safford's responses are noted in
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-security-module&m=113323166505015&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-security-module&m=113337110408758&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-security-module&m=113234278611701&w=2
> If such models can demonstrate their viability, then you can ultimately
> submit a patch to extend SELinux/Flask to support them - I have no
> problem with that (again, if they can be shown to be viable and
> implementation is correct).
Dave has an existing implementation with a user base of a formally
proven security model. He is addressing implementation concerns and
continuing to try to get SLIM accepted. Why should he be required to
extend SELinux?
-
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]
