Timeline for Access control matrix and integrity
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 28, 2012 at 2:05 | comment | added | D.W. | This answer doesn't make sense to me. The answer is not just "in theory, yes", but a plain unadorned "yes". You don't need to invoke the Biba model or any fancy MAC stuff. Ordinary everyday access control can be used to protect the integrity of a resource -- indeed, that's probably the number-one most common use of access control. If Alice doesn't have write access to resource R, she cannot mess up its integrity. | |
| Oct 26, 2012 at 14:02 | comment | added | MCW | @AviD - Both Biba and LaPadula are abstractions which describe an Access Control Policy; Access Control Lists can be implemented to support either Mandatory or Discretionary Access Control Policies. The distinction is what privilege is required to edit the ACL. However, I've a niggling suspicion that you're still on to something. I need to think about it further. I suspect however that the distinction is more subtle than the OP's question. | |
| Oct 26, 2012 at 13:57 | comment | added | MCW | You could do with a Biba model what you could do with a LaPadula model IF you could define integrity the way we currently define confidentiality. Confidentiality is defined by fiat, but no such fiat has occurred for integrity | |
| Oct 26, 2012 at 13:50 | comment | added | AviD♦ | ACL belongs to the DACL model... Also Biba and Bell-LaPadula are MAC implementations, whereas matrix-based systems are (usually) something else altogether. | |
| Oct 26, 2012 at 13:26 | comment | added | Marcin | Biba (integrity) and Bell-La Padula (confidentiality) are 'duals' of one another, so whatever you can do with one you can do with the other. | |
| Oct 26, 2012 at 11:03 | history | answered | MCW | CC BY-SA 3.0 |