From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "James W. Hoeft" Subject: Re: user message limits Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:57:23 -0800 Message-ID: <49815353.7080105@MagitekLtd.com> References: <1233100868.30154.103.camel@homeserver> <200901281215.16996.sgrubb@redhat.com> <1233164667.30154.142.camel@homeserver> <200901281514.05301.sgrubb@redhat.com> <1233174645.30154.164.camel@homeserver> <4980EC33.3070306@schaufler-ca.com> <1233186745.30154.215.camel@homeserver> <4980FA1F.6090600@schaufler-ca.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [172.16.48.31]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n0T6wIk1016161 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 01:58:18 -0500 Received: from mail.magitekltd.com (rrcs-24-242-137-197.sw.biz.rr.com [24.242.137.197]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0T6vRvW000419 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 01:57:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4980FA1F.6090600@schaufler-ca.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com To: Casey Schaufler Cc: LC Bruzenak , Linux Audit List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com The requirement to include the entire cut buffer was only for high to low (downgrade) transfers (which are only allowed for text), and was a "derived" requirement, in that we had to include the text in the audit logs in order to get approval to provide that capability. Jim Casey Schaufler wrote: > LC Bruzenak wrote: > >> On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 15:37 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote: >> >> >>> LC Bruzenak wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> That would be a most peculiar requirement. Are "they" requiring >>> that you audit the data sent with cross-level send(), read() >>> and write() as well? >>> >>> >>> >> Casey, >> >> This is similar to the HP CMW trusted copy/paste capability (not >> necessarily cut). I assume Trusted Irix had something similar? >> >> >> > > Actually, the Trix B1 evaluation had a single level window system > and the CC evaluated system was server only. > > The notion of auditing the data passed in addition to the subject > and object information has got to be a CMW thing. In principle > moving data from a Secret window to a TS window is no different > from moving it from a Secret file to a TS file, and you would > never audit that data. > > -- > Linux-audit mailing list > Linux-audit@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit > >