Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Sep 1999 19:37:05 -0400 (EDT) | From | "Albert D. Cahalan" <> | Subject | Re: Ext3 filesystem info? |
| |
[about Mandatory Access Control]
> case, what it sounds like you're doing really is trying to protect > the user from himself, which is not what I generally consider
No, protection from self would be mandatory _default_ controls. This is rather nice I think, with auditing for overrides...
Mandatory Access Control is intended to hinder spies. If a competitor wants all your sales contacts, they could use a spy. This spy could try to email your database out or put it on a Zip disk. Mandatory access control makes this task very difficult and slow, even if the spy is allowed to keep a private copy of the database in their home directory and is allowed to transfer huge files to anywhere desired. Don't bother with the printer either -- all sheets get marked in huge letters at top and bottom.
>>> Also, things are >>> far more complex to review if any user can give access to anyone through >>> acls. The acls are not seen directly with ls >> >> ls is fixable. Possibly by extending "ls -l" to show acl's or at >> least indicate in some way that acl's are present. The latter may >> be preferable to avoid script incompatibilities, sonething like this: >> Arw-r--r-- 1 helge helge 140 Feb 9 1999 .bash_profile >> The 'A' indicates that acl(s) are present, the user may then use >> something like "ls --acl" and get the full acl information.
This is already defined by standards and convention.
The standard: add one extra character after the mode Convention: add a '+' to indicate an ACL
-rw-rw-r-- 1 albert albert 25275 Feb 17 1999 plain-file -rw-rw-r--+ 1 albert albert 3049 Sep 8 21:06 regular-ACL -rw-rw-r--/ 1 albert albert 6304 Sep 8 15:51 legal-but-odd
- 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/
| |