-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 11/13/2013 12:35 PM, Dominick Grift wrote:
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 11:13 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 17:10:43 +0000, Tony Scully
> <tonyjscully(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> That's excellent!
> The mls case might have been overly simplified. It didn't cover writing,
> where the dominance goes in the other direction. People might be
> incorrectly left with the impression the top secret can do everything
> that secret can do. --
I agree with you on the danger of oversimplification in generel with regard
to explaining SELinux
This is also why i find it sub-optimal to leave the two other default
security models out of the equation (RBAC/IBAC)
It is mentioned in the article that SELinux complements Linux security, by
briefly touching on IBAC one would clarify at least to some degree how
SELinux associates with Linux security
RBAC by itself is worth mentioning in my view, if only to have touched on
each security attribute in a security context tuple.
The idea of the illustrated article is nice, but the article is not
Granted, there are constraints. You cannot simply publish a three page
article on a medium like this i suspect
Maybe a followup that describes RBAC. Not sure how the analogy would work
Dog Role, See Eye Dog Role, Rescue Dog Role.
RBAC is always hard to describe especially when you start defining SELinux Users.
Login User -> SELinux User -> roles -> Types.
The Russian dolls model is the best I have come up with.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----