[rsbac] secure code

[Matthias Jänichen]

At 03:11 13.08.02 +1000, Josh Beagley wrote:
>If there was no issue with exploitable software, and all code was 'secure'
>(in the sense without vulnerabilities), perhaps using an alternative
>computer language, would there still be a need for RBAC? What do you guys
>think?

That would mean you think RSBAC is _only_ meant to protect from bugs.

Instead is is (RSB) "Access Control" with a granularity and flexibility 
that pure Unix can not provide.

Espacially the non-standard AC-modules allow you to use Linux in a secure 
matter.

Please let me counter:

What is security? What is safety? What do you want to protect? Your system 
or your knowhow/information?

Reg.