[Jonathan S Shapiro]
> On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 20:29 +0200, Espen Skoglund wrote:
>> o Depending on your definition of security, the presence of global
>> names does not necessarily mean that the system is unsecure.
> Yes. If you are prepared to redefine security to exclude
> considerations of denial of service, fault isolation, or information
> flow isolation, this is certainly reasonable.
> But the credibility of such a definition would have to be severely
> challenged.
So, if I go ahead and tell a subsytem that: "These are the only names
you're allowed to use. You cannot access any other names within the
system or communicate with anyone outside of your subsystem." How
exactly does this preclude denial of service, fault isolation, and
information flow isolation.
eSk
_______________________________________________
L4-hurd mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
