Re: [RFC] [PATCH] file posix capabilities

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Nicholas Miell wrote:
> OTOH, everybody seems to have moved from capability-based security
> models on to TE/RBAC-based security models, so maybe this isn't worth
> the effort?
>   
TE, RBAC, AppArmor, and POSIX.1e Capabilities are all capability-based
systems, in that they all store the security attributes in the principal
(process, program, whatever) rather than the object (the files being
accessed). The difference is in the style of specifying the principals
and objects.

Crispin

-- 
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.                      http://crispincowan.com/~crispin/
Director of Software Engineering, Novell  http://novell.com
     Hack: adroit engineering solution to an unanticipated problem
     Hacker: one who is adroit at pounding round pegs into square holes

-
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]
  Powered by Linux