[Security_sig] draft DTL security doc

Ed Reed ereed at novell.com
Fri Dec 10 19:08:37 PST 2004


Quick assessment - 

Typical functionality, lacks audit.  

Local audit capability is a requirement for many environments that will
be built on the desktop.  Maybe not laptops, nor even knowlege worker
workstations.  But certainly teller apps, cash register apps, etc.

I recommend they seriously consider adding a local audit requirement, to
complete the suite of requirements.

They enumerate identification, authentication, discretionary
authorization.  Add audit, and you have the top-level functional
requirements for CAPP, which is appropriate.

We can argue later about anti-virus or least-privilege application
containment policies...well, we'll get to that in time.

Ed
 
 
>>>Chris Wright <chrisw at osdl.org> 12/09/04 7:02 pm >>> 
Hi folks, 
 
Here's the current draft of the DTL security doc.  Please recall the 
caveats Philip mentioned in the con call.  Something like (my 
paraphrase, if it's nonsense blame me): 
 
 Security was originally spread throughout the doco.  Late in process,
we 
 decided to bite the bullet and pull the items out and coallate.  A lot 
 of these items are not done for specific security arch perspective. 
 Early drafts well, input closes next week, so it's also the draft
that's 
 going in.  Not a final specification.  Don't want people to think it's 
 a comprehensive doc or systems approach.  We'll need to do that later 
 
thanks, 
-chris 
-- 
Linux Security Modules     http://lsm.immunix.org    
http://lsm.bkbits.net 



More information about the security_sig mailing list