Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Aug 2006 19:02:36 -0700 | From | Crispin Cowan <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] [PATCH] file posix capabilities |
| |
Nicholas Miell wrote: > OTOH, everybody seems to have moved from capability-based security > models on to TE/RBAC-based security models, so maybe this isn't worth > the effort? > TE, RBAC, AppArmor, and POSIX.1e Capabilities are all capability-based systems, in that they all store the security attributes in the principal (process, program, whatever) rather than the object (the files being accessed). The difference is in the style of specifying the principals and objects.
Crispin
-- Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. http://crispincowan.com/~crispin/ Director of Software Engineering, Novell http://novell.com Hack: adroit engineering solution to an unanticipated problem Hacker: one who is adroit at pounding round pegs into square holes
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |