On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Johan Paul <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Jeremiah, > > I am not up to speed with the latest regarding Security FW in MeeGo, > I'm also not an expert in that area. > but what you say sounds like MeeGo IVI could not utilize the existing > security FW in MeeGo (note, if there's even such a thing anymore?). I would have to go to the current MeeGo IVI compliance definition to determine the scope of security in MeeGo IVI. > Of > course, MeeGo IVI has probably even stronger security requirements > than, say, netbook or TV so if there isn't something already available > in MeeGo or some security feature is missing, then IVI needs to do add > that to existing solutions on in the worst case come up with our own > solution. > I would imagine this is indeed the case. > > Or I can also read your text in a such way that every API user should > take care of the security themselves and MeeGo IVI shall not contain > ready-made security features. > Well, this might make sense since there are a number of effective security frameworks that come from the Linux community directly and there is well-known security domain expertise in that community. On the other hand a consistent system-wide framework that gets enforced might be effective. I don't know about discussions of either currently in MeeGo IVI. > > A bit more clarification around security and MeeGo IVI could maybe be > in place before we start crafting Qt APIs. > This seems like the most reasonable conclusion. It'd be nice to hear what the MeeGo IVI architects and perhaps even the MeeGo architects are thinking with regard to containers and security. It may make the situation clearer. Regards, Jeremiah
_______________________________________________ MeeGo-ivi mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-ivi
