linux-kernel - Re: TOMOYO Linux Security Goal

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <728764.75184.qm@web36608.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:27:51 -0800 (PST)
From:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc:	serue@...ibm.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: TOMOYO Linux Security Goal

--- Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:

> I'm pretty sure that most of the security community agrees on what "correct"
> means - the disagreement is in the most cost-effective way to *create* one.

Struth. (I'm practicing my Australian, it's gotten rusty)
I say that the the only rational way to create a policy is to
decide what you want the system to do and create your policy
based on that. I think that calling something that does nothing
more than enforce existing behavior without thought on what the
behavior ought to be a "policy" does disservice to the entire
security community. I realize that I'm in the minority on this
one. Oh well.

Casey Schaufler
casey@...aufler-ca.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/