From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher Nielsen To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan 9 versus CORBA? Message-ID: <20010925214431.E328@cassie.foobarbaz.net> References: <20010926031317.68E3C1998A@mail.cse.psu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010926031317.68E3C1998A@mail.cse.psu.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 21:44:31 -0700 Topicbox-Message-UUID: f4074b50-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 12:13:29PM +0900, okamoto@granite.cias.osakafu-u.ac.jp wrote: [snip] > I wrote that thing because I've been touched Amoeba5.3 this month, > where they have different security scheme using capability which attracted > me somewhat (as far as I can understand it). Partticularly ion the popint > they have it per object, and have more variable security schem, or > in other words, capability. Then, I thought we can make some change of > security scheme other than just file permission scheme... Of course, > I don't know this may break the integrity of our system. [snip] I've been doing a fair amount of thinking about capabilities, mandatory access control (MAC), and security labels, lately. Unfortunately, I haven't had time to explore these thoughts in depth due to a rather demanding employer, but I like the idea of capabilities and MAC. That said, has anyone put any thought into implementing these for plan9? -- Christopher Nielsen - Metal-wielding pyro techie cnielsen@pobox.com "Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced." --unknown