On Tue, May 02, 2000 at 05:28:01PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
> > I'm not saying that you shouldn't expose the patches to people. I'm just saying that you might
> > (and I'm not trying to be rude here, and I might be totally off base), have something that
> > actually provides functionality before you start adding hooks into the kernel.
>
> ---
> It does provide real functionality. Applications can immediately be written to set/generate ID's.
> It allows parallel work to *begin* on those applications. (The below is alot more legible on
> a wide screen or variable font...sigh)
[an amazing amount of work, clipped]
When was SGI going to let the rest of the world in on this info? :)
> As much as possible, I tried to indicate "(...)&" what can be done in parallel. We are looking at what
> we can maybe share/reuse with Trusted BSD (for non kernel parts).
That sounds a lot like it should be in the realm of a customized distribution that someone would
sell/support while making all of their changes open.
> > > It's my belief that putting in small individually useful chunks will allow more people to jump
> > > onboard with later coding and design issues. It's something akin to "open design".
> >
> > For something this important, I'd like to see more of an open architectural process happening, w/
> > a real plan of attack.
>
> Is the above something along the lines you were looking for? For exact requirements, please see:
>
> http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/library/protection_profiles/CAPP-1.d.pdf (for CAPP) and
>
> http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/library/protection_profiles/LSPP-1.b.pdf (for LSPP).
I'll check these docs out.
> > Why don't you release a working add-on to Linux (going back to pcmcia-cs as an example), that people
> > can pick up and use in their distributions. I don't know about other people think, but I couldn't
> > give a rat's ass about claiming certification. I want an architected security solution that is
> > comprehensive, and actually functions.
>
> ---
> Why wasn't "SMP released as a working "add-on"? Auditing and MAC need to be integrated
> into the kernel -- they can be build-time configurable, but they can't exist as separately developed
> modules.
Hrm. I'd say that was because SMP was more important to people than DOD-supported trust certification. :)
Look at pcmcia-cs, it was used by everyone and their brother, and it wasn't included into the main kernel
distribution until recently. And it was included, IIRC, because it actually provided functionality that
people wanted/needed, AND it had a proven track record.
> > Hahaha.. I'm not saying ``don't contribute'', I'm saying, ``contribute code that actually
> > supplies real functionality''. I'd hate for something as big as trusted status to have the
> > same real functionality as some of those v0.1 MP3 archiver scripts on freshmeat.. it's easy
> > to hype, it's harder to get something that actually works.
>
> ---
> This we know, but were the MP3 archiver scripts some large computer system vendor's project?
Hah, I have one word: Fahrenheit. Where is it now?
> If I and my peers don't produce something of value to the company (something that actually works
> and can be sold to meet requirements), it would be bad. Then I'm one of those poor programmers
> standing on an off ramp with a sign "will program for food"...ok, maybe slight exaggeration, but
> I would probably be put on something alot less fun to do.
Well, good luck. You have my best wishes.
Alexander
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 07 2000 - 21:00:11 EST