|| ||Casey Schaufler <casey-AT-schaufler-ca.com>|
|| ||Peter Dolding <oiaohm-AT-gmail.com>, linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org,
|| ||Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)|
|| ||Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:43:43 -0700 (PDT)|
--- Peter Dolding <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Lets end the bitrot. Start having bits go into the main OS security
> features where they should be.
Gawd. Sorry, but we lost that argument in 1986 and the situation
hasn't changed a bit since. Most people just don't want what we're
selling. Do you know why Unix was a success and MULTICS* a failure?
It's because Unix had mode bits and MULTICS had ACLs. Fortunately
for those of us who wear titles like "Security Expert" or "Trust
Technologist" with pride there are enough clinical paranoids in
positions of authority to keep the Trusted System niche from closing
up completely and hence supporting our Rock Star Lifestyles. The
good news is that the situation is no worse than that faced by
the people who are bringing you Infiniband or Itanium, neither of
which will ever be the life of the party either. Sure security is
important, but I learned (in college, and yes they had colleges
way back then) not to drink too much at parties I'd crashed.
LSM isn't all I want it to be either, but it's better than I ever
got in the Proprietary OS world, and that includes when the MLS
systems were bringing in $20million a pop. Trying to force features
that virtually no one wants into any system is a bad idea. If
you haven't read Man of LaMancha I strongly suggest you do so.
Or at least see the play, it's got some catchy songs.
* If you don't know what MULTICS was you can buy me a beer and
I'll tell you the whole story
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
to post comments)