From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Casey Schaufler Subject: Re: AppArmor FAQ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 06:31:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <262350.24656.qm@web36604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <46260BE1.4060509@tresys.com> Reply-To: casey@schaufler-ca.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Joshua Brindle , capibara@xs4all.nl Return-path: Received: from web36604.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.21]:38876 "HELO web36604.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S2992458AbXDRNbi (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:31:38 -0400 In-Reply-To: <46260BE1.4060509@tresys.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org --- Joshua Brindle wrote: > Biba and BLP are only incompatible if they are using the same label, if > each object has a confidentiality and integrity label they work fine > together Joshua is correct here, although the original Biba observation was that flipping BLP upside down results in an integrity model. Trusted Irix uses (used?) both Biba and BLP. > (as well as MLS systems work in general that is). Doh! He had to get the dig in. Casey Schaufler casey@schaufler-ca.com