From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Moore Subject: Re: [redhat-lspp] Re: [RFC 3/7] NetLabel: CIPSOv4 engine Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:45:02 -0400 Message-ID: <200606262245.03628.paul.moore@hp.com> References: <20060621194234.979661000@flek.zko.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Joe Nall , David Miller , jmorris@redhat.com, Stephen Smalley , RedHat LSPP , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, SELinux List , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Steve Grubb Return-path: To: James Morris In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Monday 26 June 2006 8:33 pm, James Morris wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, Joe Nall wrote: > > For all of the EAL4 LSPP Linux evaluation work is being done by Red > > Hat/IBM/HP/atsec and others to be useful to integrators, there has to be > > basic (e.g. CIPSO) multilevel network interoperability with existing > > multilevel systems and good (e.g IPSec) multilevel networking between > > SELinux systems. > > Just to be clear, my understanding is that the native xfrm labeling is > suitable for LSPP evaluation, as distinct from CIPSO being desired by > system integrators from an interoperability point of view. > True, but I believe the point Joe was trying to make was that providing support for only one labeling mechanism would limit the usefulness of the evaluated configuration. What good is a Common Criteria evaluation if it doesn't contain the features that user's require? -- paul moore linux security @ hp