On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 11:13 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 17:10:43 +0000, > Tony Scully <tonyjscully@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >That's excellent! > > The mls case might have been overly simplified. It didn't cover writing, > where the dominance goes in the other direction. People might be incorrectly > left with the impression the top secret can do everything that secret > can do. > -- I agree with you on the danger of oversimplification in generel with regard to explaining SELinux This is also why i find it sub-optimal to leave the two other default security models out of the equation (RBAC/IBAC) It is mentioned in the article that SELinux complements Linux security, by briefly touching on IBAC one would clarify at least to some degree how SELinux associates with Linux security RBAC by itself is worth mentioning in my view, if only to have touched on each security attribute in a security context tuple. The idea of the illustrated article is nice, but the article is not comprehensive. Granted, there are constraints. You cannot simply publish a three page article on a medium like this i suspect -- selinux mailing list selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux
