On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Shaz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Janne Karhunen > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> MeeGo security architecture will be base on Maemo6 (Harmattan) model >> >> and codebase. More details about that: >> >> >> >> http://fosdem.org/2010/schedule/events/maemo >> >> >> >> Nokia is open sourcing the security componets starting now. >> > >> > "now"? Cool, where is the code? >> >> Hiding behind me ;). Interestingly, we have a battle going on with >> our legal about it and have to change the name of the whole thing >> before posting the patches. Unforeseen thing really, sorry about >> that. >> >> Me & Elena & Dmitry will be giving talks about it in OLS and in >> security summit unless the travel requests bounce. If you show >> up this year I guess we can have a chat about it. I will post the >> initial set of patches once the name hassle is sorted (prior to >> OLS anyway). >> >> Effective bits in access control are quite simple and similar to >> SMACK. Check the linux-security-module discussion for starters. >> The 'real' difference between smack and this is that we support >> multiple task labels and the fact that we don't allow the task to >> change it's own security context. >> > > Multiple task labels for multiple role assignment I guess ...? What about > the verification of subjects like in EVM? > > What about the secure boot part? What about adherence to existing > standards? >
What really interests me is how we get the rbac part connected to signatures. Working on it myself so need some examples to speed up :) -- Shaz
_______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
