On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 01:29:58 EDT, Kyle Moffett said:/me hands Kyle a dunce cap. :) Unfortunately, I have to agree that both AppArmor and Smack have at least the potential of qualifying as "securing the 2M lines of code". The part that Kyle forgot was what most evals these days call the "protection profile" - What's the threat model, who are you defending against, and just how good a job does it have to do? I'll posit that for a computer that is (a) not networked, (b) doesn't process sensitive information, and (c) has reasonable physical security, a security policy of "return(permitted);" for everything may be quite sufficient. (Of course, I also have boxes where "the SELinux reference policy with all the MCS extensions plus all the LSPP work" is someplace I'm trying to get to).
| monstr | [PATCH 27/56] microblaze_v2: support for a.out |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Rafael J. Wysocki | [Bug #10493] mips BCM47XX compile error |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Frans Pop | svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97). |
