Re: [saag] Common labeled security (comment on CALIPSO, labeled NFSv4)

"Santosh Chokhani" <SChokhani@cygnacom.com> Mon, 06 April 2009 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <SChokhani@cygnacom.com>
X-Original-To: saag@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: saag@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99A843A68DE for <saag@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 08:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.408
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.408 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.061, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4ZNntG45GCI5 for <saag@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 08:50:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scygmxsecs1.cygnacom.com (scygmxsecs1.cygnacom.com [65.242.48.253]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2894D28C1F2 for <saag@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 08:50:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 14755 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2009 15:50:28 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO scygexch1.cygnacom.com) (10.60.50.8) by scygmxsecs1.cygnacom.com with SMTP; 6 Apr 2009 15:50:28 -0000
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 11:51:38 -0400
Message-ID: <FAD1CF17F2A45B43ADE04E140BA83D48AA0032@scygexch1.cygnacom.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090406151606.GQ1500@Sun.COM>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [saag] Common labeled security (comment on CALIPSO, labeled NFSv4)
Thread-Index: Acm2zw6I8dU/A2hTSWG5tuufhnf4TAAAD5QA
References: <20090402154402.GM1500@Sun.COM> <FAD1CF17F2A45B43ADE04E140BA83D48A9FF82@scygexch1.cygnacom.com> <20090403164522.DEA9A9A4739@odin.smetech.net> <9C2457A4-328A-4A68-A9D2-6E4B5544078D@Isode.com> <FAD1CF17F2A45B43ADE04E140BA83D48A9FFE0@scygexch1.cygnacom.com> <B8FB99E8-17AA-4D4B-A309-8AF79838A304@Isode.com> <FAD1CF17F2A45B43ADE04E140BA83D48A9FFE9@scygexch1.cygnacom.com> <20090406151606.GQ1500@Sun.COM>
From: "Santosh Chokhani" <SChokhani@cygnacom.com>
To: "Nicolas Williams" <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
Cc: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, labeled-nfs@linux-nfs.org, Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga@Isode.com>, nfsv4@ietf.org, saag@ietf.org, nfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [saag] Common labeled security (comment on CALIPSO, labeled NFSv4)
X-BeenThere: saag@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Advisory Group <saag.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag>
List-Post: <mailto:saag@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:50:41 -0000

Nico,

Either you need equivalency or not.

If you do not, that part of SPIF can be stripped off.

If you do need one, the complexity, scalability, and interoperability of
other alternatives should be assessed against SPIF approach.

(We want to compare apples to apples) 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicolas Williams [mailto:Nicolas.Williams@sun.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 11:16 AM
> To: Santosh Chokhani
> Cc: Kurt Zeilenga; selinux@tycho.nsa.gov; 
> labeled-nfs@linux-nfs.org; nfsv4@ietf.org; saag@ietf.org; 
> nfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> Subject: Re: [saag] Common labeled security (comment on 
> CALIPSO, labeled NFSv4)
> 
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 07:03:32AM -0400, Santosh Chokhani wrote:
> > I view SPIF as performing the following functions: 
> converting machine 
> > to human representation and vice versa; establishing equivalency 
> > between two labeling policies, and defining which labels with the 
> > lattice are valid and which are invalid.
> 
> If I understand Russ' comment correctly the difficulty with 
> SPIF lies in the label equivalency concept.  I think there's 
> a better solution for dealing with the idea that parts of a 
> policy are classified differently than others.
> 
> Nico
> -- 
>