From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964854AbWD0AVh (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:21:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964860AbWD0AVh (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:21:37 -0400 Received: from web36603.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.20]:17300 "HELO web36603.mail.mud.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S964854AbWD0AVh (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:21:37 -0400 Message-ID: <20060427002136.24536.qmail@web36603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-RocketYMMF: rancidfat Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:21:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Casey Schaufler Reply-To: casey@schaufler-ca.com Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/11] security: AppArmor - Overview To: Stephen Smalley Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1146053725.28745.50.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --- Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 20:42 -0700, Casey Schaufler > wrote: > > Conflating my forehead! > > The policy is analyzable, and there are tools (apol > and slat) that do precisely that. Ok. I remain unconvinced, in part because the analysis requires tools. > Including information flow analysis > and invariant checking. Ok. Fair enough. > What's your problem, again? You keep asking that. I seem to have fallen off topic, which happens sometimes, and I apologize for falling into this long standing and overly religeous debate. I have failed to present my case with sufficient clarity to prove convincing once again. Perhaps one day I'll get it right. Perhaps one day I'll figure out why I'm wrong. Casey Schaufler casey@schaufler-ca.com