Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:43:24 +0000 From: Colman Reilly <careilly@monoid.cs.tcd.ie> To: config@freebsd.org Cc: Adam Turoff <AdamT@smginc.com> Subject: Re: WebAdmin (was: RE: /usr/src/release/sysinstall needs YOU. :-)) Message-ID: <199801301443.OAA08247@monoid.cs.tcd.ie>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 28 Jan 1998 11:16:00 PST." <34D0D540@smginc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:19:53 +1030 From: Mike Smith <mike@word> > OK. Enough goading. :-) OK. 8) I saved this mesasge because it's a good place to start plugging Juliet again. 8) > I don't feel qualified enough to start down this path alone. There > are a lot of nontrivial security issues to deal with, and a lot of > nontrivial configuration issues to deal with, too. This becomes easier when you layer the security issues. I would stop worrying about them for starters. I've written up and published a summary of the architectural discussions as I understand them together with some of my thoughts on the security issues at http://www.cs.tcd.ie/~careilly/portia/ArchNotes. The network here has been a bit unstable over the last week or two so it may be a bit unreliable. (Something to do with ATM switches I believe. What a suprise.) It's only a draft that I knocked up over the last hour, so excuse the quality. I'll try and keep it up to date as the discussion progresses and I'll try to write up a comprehensible explanation of what I mean by a "layered access control system" (LAX) over the weekend. Apologies in advance if I've mis-interpreted any of the discussion. Note that I am entirely agnostic about which languages we implement in. I see no reason that different layers shouldn't have different implementation languages. Colman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199801301443.OAA08247>