Hi! > >> Some may infer otherwise from your document. > >> > > Not only that, the implication that secrecy is only useful to > > intelligence agencies is pretty funny. > That was not the claim. Rather, that intelligence agencies have a very > strong need for privacy, and will go to greater lengths to get it, > including using MLS systems. I contend that while most organizations > want privacy, they don't want it so badly that they will put up with > MLS, and so are looking for a more tolerable form of security. > > This is relevant here because information flow is the main advantage of > labels over pathnames for access control. AppArmor does not attempt to > manage information flow, allowing it to use pathnames to achieve ease of > use. If you want information flow control, then by all means use a As SEEdit shows, you can still have ease-of-use with system capable of MLS.... so don't try to paint is as "pathnames are neccessary so it is easy to use". Just extend SELinux to handle new files. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html